5D Space - Frequency of Cycles in Dimensional Scale

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

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

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???

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[DrP]

37 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...

This is due to the fact that when you were 2 years old.... a year was half of the entirety of life that you had ever experienced - 50% - and it seems to drag. Now (lets say you are 30 yo for arguments sake) a year is only 3.33% of your entire life experience...  it makes it 'seem' faster... but it isn't - it is still a year. It's how you perceive it - No dilation there.

 

27 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

"Ant Man" shows perfectly, how perception of time, depends on the size of an observer - and it is fully consistent with my model:

again - PERCEPTION of time and actual time. The clock on the wall still goes the same speed when he shrinks, it just seems slower.  When you get time dilation from travelling close to C the clock actually IS going slower than your one.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

again - PERCEPTION of time and actual time. The clock on the wall still goes the same speed when he shrinks, it just seems slower.  When you get time dilation from travelling close to C the clock actually IS going slower than your one.

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...

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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).

So? Even if true, that has no effect on time, only that the clock is now calibrated differently.

2 hours 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 (or frequency) of a pendulum scales as the square root of the length.

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 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).

So if I have one clock whose oscillator runs at 9192 MHz, and another that runs at 6835 MHz, and yet another that runs at 1420 MHz, they all keep different time? There's no way for them to keep the same time?

25 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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???

Time perception ≠ time

[DrP]

4 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Scale affects the lenght of lifespan due to diffrent rate of metabolism

Yes that's true - it's biomechanical - not relativity/dilation of time though.

6 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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

No - it effects the rate of the clock - not the passage of time that the clock experiences. Clocks can run fast or slow....  time isn't running faster or slower for those clocks. Whatever those clocks say the number of decays from a block of caesium remains constant.  

Shrink the caesium block....  does it decay slower?   (no).

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

So? Even if true, that has no effect on time, only that the clock is now calibrated differently.

It would have an effect on the lifespan of scaled observer - that's a measurable physical effect

Quote

The period (or frequency) of a pendulum scales as the square root of the length.

Ok, but it's still affected by scale

Quote

So if I have one clock whose oscillator runs at 9192 MHz, and another that runs at 6835 MHz, and yet another that runs at 1420 MHz, they all keep different time? There's no way for them to keep the same time?

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

Quote

Yes that's true - it's biomechanical - not relativity/dilation of time though.

it's caused by biomechanical processes, but it is relative for scaled and non-scaled observers

Quote

No - it effects the rate of the clock - not the passage of time that the clock experiences. Clocks can run fast or slow....  time isn't running faster or slower for those clocks. Whatever those clocks say the number of decays from a block of caesium remains constant.  

Shrink the caesium block....  does it decay slower?   (no).

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)

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It would have an effect on the lifespan of scaled observer - that's a measurable physical effect

 

But not a measure of time passage.

5 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

But thoretically, we can make it larger - and according to my model it WOULD affect the rate of decay (it would make it slower)

How?

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

"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.

But that is perception. Not time.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

But not a measure of time passage.

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

Quote

But that is perception. Not time.

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.

Quote

How?

Because the distances in an atom would get bigger, while velocities would have to remain the same

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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.

That is measuring time differently. If you use a standard clock, you will see there is no time dilation.

This seems utterly pointless, though.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

That is measuring time differently. If you use a standard clock, you will see there is no time dilation.

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

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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

But then you are not measuring the sam thing.

Consider an atomic clock, or the decay of a muon. These are not affected by scaling. (But they are affected by relative velocity.)

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

But then you are not measuring the sam thing.

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

Quote

Consider an atomic clock, or the decay of a muon. These are not affected by scaling. (But they are affected by relative velocity.)

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...

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It would have an effect on the lifespan of scaled observer - that's a measurable physical effect

I will die sooner if I have a small clock in my house?

You have data to support this claim?

Quote

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)

We just use a frequency divider. But a clock running at 9192 MHz, you count 9190 million oscillations, and that's a second. For the 6835 MHz oscillator, you count to 6835 million. Similarly for 1420 MHz.

That's not different time.

Quote

But I don't see how it is related to the time as dimension VS time as frequency rate

 Is that what we're allegedly discussing?

———

When you speak of a "scaled observer", are you contending that if we redefined a meter to be 2x, or 1/2  (or whatever) of what it is now, that we would also have to scale the second to be consistent (depending on what we held constant)?

That should be unsurprising, and has no real physical ramifications whatsoever. Unit systems are arbitrary.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

I will die sooner if I have a small clock in my house?

No...

You will die sooner, if you would shrink yourself

Quote

We just use a frequency divider. But a clock running at 9192 MHz, you count 9190 million oscillations, and that's a second. For the 6835 MHz oscillator, you count to 6835 million. Similarly for 1420 MHz.

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.

Quote

Is that what we're allegedly discussing?

You were referring to that part of my response...

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

It's like measuring time in accelerated frame, using a stationary clock. In both examples, you need to scale/accelerate the measuring device

Except that in an accelerated from of reference it is (coordinate) time that changes, therefore all measuring instruments (and biological processes) will be seen to change by the same amount. So the lifetime of a muon will change by the same amount as a ticking clock.

That is not the case in your scaling. A muon, for example, cannot be scaled and will not change its decay time in your "scaled frame of reference". The same is true for a caesium atom.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Strange

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Except that in an accelerated from of reference it is (coordinate) time that Changs, therefore all measuring instruments (and biological processes) will be seen to change by the same amount.

And that's exactly what, according to my model, will happen in the scaled frame.

Quote

That is not the case in your scaling. A muon, for example, cannot be scaled and will not change its decay time in your "scaled frame of reference". The same is true for a caesium atom.

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

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

This is why you HAVE to use a measuring device, which CAN be scalled.

So you are saying that your "theory" only applies to things that can be scaled. It doesn't apply to the real world (e.g. muons or atoms). And it rests on the shaky assumption that everything responds the same way when scaled.

And you have no evidence to support any of this.

Sounds increasingly implausible. And pointless. We can make use of relativity (we have to make use of it). There seems to be no practical use for this idea.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

So you are saying that your "theory" only applies to things that can be scaled. It doesn't apply to the real world (e.g. muons or atoms). And it rests on the shaky assumption that everything responds the same way when scaled.

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...

Quote

And you have no evidence to support any of this.

Simple laws of macro-scale mechanics prove it...

Quote

We can make use of relativity (we have to make use of it). There seems to be no practical use for this idea

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...

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

If it would be possible, to change the size of an atom, it would work as well...

And if pigs could fly...

Your "theory" cannot correctly model the behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles.

You have provided zero evidence that it correctly models the effects of other things.

42 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And now try to explain this scenario, using our current models... Good luck...

It is just obvious. And useless.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Your "theory" cannot correctly model the behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles.

And so doesn't GR... For this purpose, we use QM...

Quote

You have provided zero evidence that it correctly models the effects of other things.

What other things?

Quote

It is just obvious.

Yes, It is - and still you keep telling, that it's incorrect. Make up your mind...

Quote

And useless.

Then try to explain my scenario using GR... 

Whoops - it won't work...

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

And so doesn't GR... For this purpose, we use QM.

Special relativity correctly predicts the short lifetimes of high speed muons, for example. And quantum theory incorporates special relativity.

12 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

What other things?

Do pendulums, water clocks, all biological processes, attic clocks and every other method of measuring time all change their rate of timing by the same amount when scaled by the same amount (in some cases, the answer is obviously no, in others it is not clear).

14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Yes, It is - and still you keep telling, that it's incorrect. Make up your mind...

You know seem to be saying something that is trivially true: if you change all lengths including your ruler then you can't tell the difference. If you change all times including your clocks then you can't tell the difference.

But, as swansont pointed out earlier, just scaling all your measurements makes no difference but Is meaningless.

16 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Then try to explain my scenario using GR

It appears to be irrelevant. You can't explain it using the theory of evolution either.

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Special relativity correctly predicts the short lifetimes of high speed muons, for example. And quantum theory incorporates special relativity.

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...

Quote

Do pendulums, water clocks, all biological processes, attic clocks and every other method of measuring time all change their rate of timing by the same amount when scaled by the same amount (in some cases, the answer is obviously no, in others it is not clear).

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.

Quote

You know seem to be saying something that is trivially true: if you change all lengths including your ruler then you can't tell the difference. If you change all times including your clocks then you can't tell the difference.

I agree in 100% And it's trivially true - that's what I said in the beginning...

Quote

But, as swansont pointed out earlier, just scaling all your measurements makes no difference but Is meaningless.

It's meaningless for scaled observer. 

It has a significant meaning for a non-scaled observer

Quote

You can't explain it using the theory of evolution either.

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?

Edited April 3, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 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.

Why doesn't the velocity change?

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

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.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

only SR is not GR

It is just a subset of GR and all that is needed in this context.

13 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

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...

Go on then. Show some mathematical predictions that can be compared with experimental evidence.

14 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

They should, if we keep the proportions of all their properties (including for example mass, velocity or energy).

I don't believe it will. And your assertion doesn't convince me.