# Fractal Universe - 5D Space-Time: Frequency Of Cycles In Dimensional Scale

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### GatheringKnowledge

I have to begin with a story, that happened to me on a different scientific forum and which might explain my feelings regarding the current state of mainstream science. You need to know, that around 2 years ago, just like in all previous cases, I came out with the idea of fractal spacetime geometry just by myself, when I've noticed, that laws of MHD seem to work on multiple scales - interactions of electromagnetic fields are the same for galaxies and for subatomic particles. It didn't took me long, to figure out, that it's possible, to make out a possible relation between size/volume and the rate of experienced time. The general premise of my model, was to visualise time, as frequency in cycles of events and see, how it changes in scale. Of course, the most obvious conclusion is, that frequency of events is growing, with the decrease in size of a frame in relation to observer. Low frequency in the cycle of galaxy rotation and high frequency in cycles in atoms and EM waves. As a working example, I've compared time experienced in frame of a human and frame of an insect. At this time, it was to me obvious, that my idea of 5D fractal spacetime is way too radical, while making too much sense, to think about it, as about an accepted scientific theory - so I generally predicted, that when I will confront my ideas with people, who consider themselves as those with authority in the field of physics, I will be treated, like a complete ignorant and idiot - and of course, I was in 100% right. I've made this thread, assuming that I can't support it with approved science and as expected, I was attacked by everyone. It was like 16 people vs 1 me. First they said, that it doesn't make sense, then they said, that it's too obvious to change anything, then they demanded equations and when presented with one, that shows relation between anfgular momentum, rotational velocity and radius of a circle, they said that it's not "my own" equation. And now imagine, what I have to think about ppl, who consider themselves, as educated physicists after I figured out, that there actually IS generally approved science behind most of my radical claims. Do you know, what moderator of that forum said, when I've presented him the info about the theory of scale relativity? He said: "This appears to have little to do with your OP. ". So for me, while he claims to have the authority, he seems also to lack proper knowledge...

Anyway, today I'm couple levels higher, than 2 years ago and now I'm aware, that almost all of my most radical claims have a strong support of actual theoretical physics and that it's just most of physicists, who seem to be completely ignorant about the recent trends in science. As for this moment, not only I can give you plenty of different sources, but I know as well someone, who in my eyes deserves actual authority in theoretical physics and who came to conclususions, which are quite similar to my own ones.

But let's begin from the 2 main terms of this subject:

Generally, first article doesn't mention the progress of this theory in the last decade. Second article mentions a name, which is at this moment the most known one, when it comes to fractal cosmology - a guy named Laurent Notalle. Here's one of his papers:

However, besides the general idea of scale-dependent geometry, he proposes a completely different solution, than I do. In his theory, he uses the idea of Einstein's time dilation, as support of the idea, that at atomic scales coordinates should undergo Galilean-like transformations, while at macroscales they should obbey Lorent's transformation. In shortcut, I consider it, as a kind of cheap super-glue, that tries to connect 2 theories, that doesn't fit to eachother. You don't have to believe in my claims, but the sad truth is, that QFT and SRT never won't be able to work together properly and in order to progress, science will have at one point in the future, face the unpleasant fact of Einstein being a genius-level intelectual fraud. You might hate me for those words, but I have my reasons to say so and I can support my claims with actual science - I'm not exaggerating, by saying, that 95% of my theory has a pretty solid scientific base. Anyway, let's proceed with the discussed subject...

Now is the best moment, to tell you about a theoretical physicist, who I actually respect. His name is Sergey Fedosin and I'm sure, that most of you never heard about this guy. However, when it comes to his credentials, check out those sites:

Although I don't necessary agree with each single of his ideas, there's one particular paper, which seems to confirm my claims regarding scale dimension and rate of time flow:
"(...)The introduction of the scale dimension takes into account that at different levels of matter the rates
of time flow, regarded as the speeds of typical processes for similar objects, differ from each other.
However, it is possible to introduce the total coordinate time, based for example on periodic processes in
an electromagnetic wave."

After I've used mr Fedosin's work in my movie, I've noticed him about this fact in an e-mail and he was kind enough, to provide a link to that movie on his private Wikiversity site, where he presents a theory called: "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter"

There's also this paper, which seems to support my claims regarding frequency of cycles and volume/size
"Fractal dimensions of time sequences" - Fractal dimensions of time sequences

I need also to mention about couple ineresting papers and articles, which although are referencing the Notalle model of scale relativity, still seem to fit nicely to my claims regarding MHD and gravity in a spatial scale dimension:

"IMPLICATIONS OF SCALE RELATIVITY IN GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD THEORY" - http://www.nipne.ro/rjp/2010_55_7-8/0665_0676.pdf
check out this fragment: "in such a context, the presence of an electromagnetic or gravito-electromagnetic field (the linear approximation of the gravitational field) can permit the development of a fractal MHD or GMHD (Gravito-Magnetohydrodynamic) model". Ha! It seems, that I'm right on time with my "update" of gravity model

"Gravity Looks Like Electro-Magnetism When Seen Through Fractal Logic Glasses" - http://www.ijism.org/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/IJISM_857_FINAL.pdf

"Gravitational structure formation in scale relativity" - https://cds.cern.ch/record/645919/files/0310036.pdf

"Fractal universe and quantum gravity" - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46423898_Fractal_Universe_and_Quantum_Gravity

"Quantum Gravity and Dark Energy Using Fractal Planck Scaling" - Quantum Gravity and Dark Energy Using Fractal Planck Scaling

"Gravitation theory in a fractal space-time" - Gravitation theory in a fractal space-time|INIS

"Towards Fractal Gravity" - Towards Fractal Gravity

also a java applet code - Gravity Simulation Fractal Applet « Java recipes « ActiveState Code

How do you think - should I try to contact some of those guys and ask, if they are interested in a model of gravity, that works in scale and is capable to explain the gravitational expulsion of plasma, using the cheerio's effect for floating objects? From my previous experience, I can guess already, that at least mr Fedosin will probably find the time to response...

Last edited:

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
I'm going to let this thread stand, but I need you to understand that this is a help Forum, not a place to expound upon your ideas. Please, no more of these.

-Dan

#### benit13

How do you think - should I try to contact some of those guys and ask, if they are interested in a model of gravity, that works in scale and is capable to explain the gravitational expulsion of plasma, using the cheerio's effect for floating objects?
Why not? If you find someone else who's interested in what you are also interested in, there's no harm throwing them an email.

The worst case scenario is that they contact you and then give you confirmation bias on an incorrect theory without applying the scientific method. Top tip for all researchers: don't ever get personally attached to your own hypotheses.

The best case is that they actually criticise your ideas substantially and that allows you to improve the hypothesis, such as to make it more internally consistent, conform more to existing observational constraints or make new predictions that are possibly testable.

The probable case is that some might reply with some info, others won't.

topsquark

#### GatheringKnowledge

I think, that before I will share my ideas about gravity, mass and energy in scale dimension, I should come out with something measurable and show in practice how this model can be applied to different scales. I'm thinking about using the idea of potential/kinetic energy equivalence in the case of particles in a hadron collider - as it works, as a perfect case for a model, where total potential energy of rest mass is understood, as the energy, which can be released to the environment due matter annihilation in a direct collision with the exact copy of a given physical object, at the border velocity of 100%c. However as you probably noticed, I base most of my claims on calculations, which were already made by ppl, who know how to solve sophisticated math better, than I do. But here I would have to make my own equation and I'm not exactly sure, if I can do it properly. In the thread about gravitational expulsion, I came out with this: $$\displaystyle Utot=(m*c)^2$$
but soon after I started to wonder, if I shouldn't divide it by 2 - since it should express the potential energy of one object, while collision requires 2 bodies. But then I would also need to include the fact, that more energy will be released for 2 objects moving at 100%c in opposite directions, than for one object moving at 100%c and second one being stationary. In the end, I came to a conclusion that $$\displaystyle 1/2m*2v$$ should give the same momentum, as $$\displaystyle m*v$$ - so the original equation still seems to make mathematical sense to me. This however is completely against the rules of SR and requires me to use my model of constant c in relative motion - as it uses the standard galilean relativity and sets the absolute limit of relative velocity at 2c...

I don't know, what it's being said about this subject in generally approved physics, but in my model kinetic energy is actually a RELATIVE value, as it depends on velocity of relative motion, while it's the total potential energy of rest mass, which is definitive and doesn't change due to acceleration/deceleration of relative motion. As I said, I'm absoltely not sure, if my math is correct, but it makes for me even more sense, after looking at the equations, describing kinetic energy of moving mass:

I started already to research, how SR is being used to get a valid result for energy released in a collision of particles inside a hadron collider - but this is not something, what can be easily solved at my current level of knowledge, as I'm still not sure, if I understand this subject correctly. My general question was: "If we use Einstein's velocity addition formula for particles, that move in opposite directions at 0,999999991c, their relative velocity during a collision shouldn't change too much - so what is the sense, to accelerate colliding hadrons in opposing directions, as it's being done in LHC?". In my understanding, this problem is being solved by using the idea of "relativistic mass" - correct me, if I'm wrong here, as I just started to larn about this subject.

I've found couple cool sites, which discuss this problem, however while I can more or less "assimilate" information from this site:

Let's talk a little bit more between a head on collision and a fixed target collision.

From Special Theory of Relativity we use s a so-called Mandelstam variable, and, particularly √s , which corresponds to the energy, in the COM frame (see here), that is available for new particle production as a result of the collision.

a) fixed target collision:
√s ~ √(2Ebeam·m2·c2)
where m2 is de rest mass of the fixed target particle and Ebeam. is the beam proton energy.
Taking a proton: m2 ≈ 0.001 TeV/c2
To get an energy of √s = 14 TeV (case of LHC), the proton energy in the beam should be:
Ebeam ≈ 142/(2·0,001)
Ebeam ~105TeV

b)
In that case √s is:
√s ~ 2√(2Ebeam1·Ebeam2)

Taking two identical beams in momentum and energy Ebeam1= Ebeam2 (case of LHC) :
√s = 2·Ebeam
At LHC the energy required is 14 TeV, so each proton need to reach:
Ebeam =√s /2
Ebeam = 7 TeV

Looking at the both two results (7 TeV and 105 TeV) it is not necessary to add any comment about.

...here in my understanding, given information is completely contradicting eachother:

Mass m1 and m2 in a head-on collision (ɵ = 180º).
s = (m1·c2)2 + (m2 c2)2 + 2(E1·E2 + 2·p1c·p2c)
Take into account that Ei >> mi·c2 and Ei ~ pi·c , we have:
s ~ 2(E1·E2·+ E1·E2) à s ~ 4E1·E2
√s ~ 2√(E1·E2)

For the special case of identicle particles of equal momentum, colliding head-on (like the case of LHC), the COM is at rest in the lab, and:
s = (m·c2)2 + (m c2)2 + 2(E·E + 2·pc·pc)
s = 2(m·c2)2 + 2·E2 + 2(p·c)2 às = 4·E2
√s = 2·E
So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton:
√s = 14 TeV

That is the energy available for new particle production in LHC collision.

For a Fixed target, considering a proton moving with energy E1 colliding with a fixed target formed for a proton at rest (m2·c2 ~ 10-3 TeV) to get 14 TeV we need E1 to be:
√s ~ √(2E1·m2·c2)
14 = √(2E1·10-3)
E1 ~ 105 TeV
It is very clear the advantage by using collider vs fixed target.

And after reading the last sentence, I started to doubt in my ability to understand things... How it's an advantage to use a fixed/stationary target, if it requires much higher energy of accelerated bullet-particle??? Why then in LHC particles are being accelerated in opposite directions??? What's going on here???

I would love, to find some one, who can do the proper math, to see if my concept of mass/energy equivalence can be used in case of particles colliding in LHC and give a valid result. I'm willing to give 50% of credits to someone, who's interested in helping me to start a scientific revolution...

Last edited:

#### GatheringKnowledge

I KNOW, THAT THIS POST MIGHT SEEM TO BE DEALING WITH THINGS, THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN A DIFFERENT THREAD, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SOME THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR A MODEL OF GRAVITY IN 5D AND THIS IS IN FACT A CRUCIAL PART OF THAT THEORY...

Phew! I spent couple last hours researching relations between mass, velocity and energy, but in the end I found only more questions and almost no answers. Well, actually I managed to learn, that my guess regarding the problem with momentum of objects, that approach speed of light, was correct and in Einstein's relativity it is indeed solved by increase of the "relativistic mass" due to high velocity. But this is where things get rather complicated. First of all, it seems, that there's a huge difference between the invariant "rest mass" (m), which doesn't change due to relative velocity and the relativistic "inertial mass" (m0), which can grow together with relative velocity to infinity at 100%c.

It seems as well, that my confusion isn't something, what comes just from my complete ignorance - as even among physicists the concept of relative mass is a pretty controversial subject. For example information from the following link seems to contradict things, which are being said in the previous links...

In shortcut, if you ask about the increase of inertia (inertial mass) due to velocity, some physicists will say, that addition of energy increases the rest mass of a body and that growing kinetic energy will cause exactly such result, while others will say, that it's a non-realistic effect, as mass increases only for frames in relative motion and remains the same for someone, who's moving together with the object in question - and to make it even more funny, both will then use the time dilation and lenght contraction, to prove their contradicting explanations... So in the end, just like in most of similar cases, I had to come to my own conclusions.

Generally, second explanation seems to make much more sense, as kinetic energy depends on relative velocity. How could the inertial mass change due to relative motion, if kinetic energy will be the same for an object, which is moving at velocity v towards a stationary observer and for an observer moving at the same velocity v towards a stationary object? By assuming, that a relative value (velocity) can make a change of a definitive property (inertia), we are breaking the main postulates of relativity. The most logical solution, is to treat the relativistic mass as a non-realisic component of momentum in relative motion at high velocities. To put it simply: because of relativistic velocity addition formula, momentum of an object, which is approaching 100%c, can't be no longer explained by the change of relative velocity and starts to depend on increasing relativistic mass - however mass of that object won't change even a bit in a frame, which moves together with that object (relative velocity = 0).

But while such explanation seems to make more sense, than the alternative one, it seems also, that it's actually the other one, which is consistent with SR and the results acquired from Lorent's transformation. If you don't believe me, then look at the diagrams below - upper one is for a stationary frame and an object, approaching at v=0,5c and the one below is for the frame of that object.

It should be clear to any one, who can read those diagrams, that the relative motion results here in a DEFINITIVE change of time flow rate and that object moving at v=0,5c (blue worldline) will experience less time than stationary observer (red worldline). Basing my deduction on those diagrams, I came to the conclusion, that according to SR, 100%c can't be never reached because the inertial mass of an accelerating object is growing together with the velocity. So, if we accelerate an object to 99,99%c, for someone moving together with it, inertial mass of that object will grow and result in increased resistance to further acceleration. If you see the lack of logic in such explanation, don't worry - you're not alone...

But now the question is: is there some way, to explain the infinite amount of energy, required to accelerate a rest mass to 100%c, other than assuming the increase of it's inertia? And my answer is YES. Imagine, that you accelerate some object to 99%c and then accelerate yourself to the same velocity - so you and the object will appear to be at rest in relation to eachother. If there would be a third observer, that remains stationary all the time, he would say, that you move together with the object at 99%c - but from your perspective object, which is moving together with you, has relative velocity of 0%c, while light still moves at the constant 100%c and you will need again the same amount of energy as before, to accelerate the object to 99% of c from your inertial frame. However from the perspective of the 3'rd stationary observer, despite the same amount of required energy, you managed to accelerate that object only by 99% of 0,01c - and now from his perspective it's moving at 99,9%c. And then you can of course accelerate yourself again to such velocity and by using the same amount of energy as before, you will accelerate the object just by 99% of 0,001c. And so on into infinity... Funny things might start to happen, if the 3'rd observer would at this point move at 99,99%c in direction opposite to you - but even then the symmetry of relative motion is maintained for all frames... And isn't it more or less, what we get in the equations for collisions of particles in LHC from my previous post?

Ok, that's more or less, what I figured out regarding the subject of kinetic energy and mass in relative motion. Now I can deal with the relation between inertial mass and other types of energy (like thermal energy) and proceed further into mass/work/potential&kinetic energy - what will be the point, where gravity comes into play. But I'll do it in another post...

If you didn't notice - I'm writing down my ideas, just as they clarify in my mind in almost real-time. In the difference, to others part of my theory, which I presented here up until now, this is something, what I just started to learn about (literally since yesterday), so I will be more than happy to hear any educated opinion...

Last edited:

#### GatheringKnowledge

I found a nice lecture regarding momentum and kinetic energy equivalence. This should be a nice test to my brain cells.

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
As I've said, (somewhere on the Forum) there is a big difference between massive particles (which can't go the speed of light but may approach it) and massless particles (which always travel at the speed of light.) The symmetry groups in QM are completely different so we should expect different behavior. That's way we don't usually talk about inertial frames for massless particles. It is really an undefined concept.

-Dan

benit13

#### GatheringKnowledge

As I've said, (somewhere on the Forum) there is a big difference between massive particles (which can't go the speed of light but may approach it) and massless particles (which always travel at the speed of light.) The symmetry groups in QM are completely different so we should expect different behavior. That's way we don't usually talk about inertial frames for massless particles. It is really an undefined concept.

-Dan
Haha! It gets even better... Didn't you hear, that not so long ago, scientists forced photons, to behave just like electrons do?

Today it gets pretty hard to say, what is or isn't possible in experimental physics. A properly working theory should be capable to handle each thought experiment, don't make any exceptions as for applied rules and always give a logically valid result. Sadly SR doesn't meet any of those requirements... When physicists say, that since they don't find any use of the broken part, it can simply remain broken and no one won't care about it any longer - it's like them saying: "we're still rolling, so why bother about some small part of the engine?"

Maybe some will find it unnecessary for science, but wouldn't it be nice, to describe the frame of a photon in an Ice cube, during the detection of a neutrino? Don't you think, that a situation, where a flash of light is produced by a massive particle, which exceeds velocity of photons in a medium with non-0 density, is worth a theoretical examination? We can for example find here couple interesting similarities to a sonic boom... I think, that in such case, it would make much more sense, to consider frame of a photon, as valid one - somehow the logical order of timeline is always maintained in such events...

But do you want to see a real brain squeezer? Imagine getting so small, that when using a ruler, which was scaled together with your volume, you will measure wavelenght of visible light in meters...

Even better - imagine a scenario, where proportions of volume/mass get reverted for a 10g bullet, which moves at 500km/h in relation to a 100kg stationary target... Haha! Now this is something, what might burn the circuits in a brain...

But do you know, what scares me at most? I've noticed, that since yesterday everything started to become more and more obvious to me - and at this moment I see already a weirdly perfect sense in this apparent mess...

It's all about the equivalence of momentum and kinetic energy. On one side of the equation, function takes form of a stright line for linear addition in the momentum of a moving body - while on the second side of equation, we have a square function for the kinetic energy of that body. Now, momentum and it's linear function makes the invariant part of that equation, while square function of Ek makes the part, which changes due to relative velocity and (!!!) undergoes dimensional scaling - the smaller gets the scale, the more linear the square function appears to be... With this it should be possible to solve the scenario with reversed proportions of mass/volume for a moving bullet & stationary target...

It seems as well, that I gave the proper solution for a mass, which is approaching c, in my previous post - and I didn't even notice it...

As for massive and massless energy: for massive objects, it's their potential energy, which is definitive - for photons, it's their kinetic energy, which is definitive. IMPORTANT NOTE: emission/absorption of a photon by rest mass is ALWAYS associated with a definitive change on the linear/momentum side of equivalence formula...

It's scary, how everything seems to make perfect sense for me right now. A perfect moment of clarity in a chaotic and uncertain probability... Everything fits to eachother and becomes a part of new whole... My theory gets close to it's completion - and I start to be afraid of myself... You see - this is exactly, what might happen, when you are forced to look by yourself for answers to your own questions...

Plz, don't close this thread just yet - I still have to explain couple important issues...

Last edited:

#### benit13

What exactly is it that you want from us?

#### GatheringKnowledge

Those are no jokes anymore... I'm really starting to become scared of myself. I think, that I figured out the numerical equation to my idea of momentum/kinetic energy equivalence - and as always it's obviously the most simple solution:

$$\displaystyle Utot=Ek^2$$
And why $$\displaystyle Ek^2$$? Because rest mass not only gives back/reflects the energy of force/work, which is induced on it (Newton's 3 law) but at the same time it induces force/work on any other potential energy introduced into it;s gravitational field. Both objects induce force on eachother and yet their total potential energy doesn't decrease in time. Gravity on Earth's surface wouldn't change too much without the moon in our orbit. In all gravitational interactions, the equivalence of potential/kinetic energy is maintained in a system of bodies and experiences a definitive change only due to those processes, which include emission or absorption of potential energy - photon emmision due to collision with mass, change of thermal energy or increase of electric potential. And now comes an important part - such equation would mean, that the total sum of energy for 2 separate objects, is always bigger, than the total energy of a single object with equal mass. Moon orbiting Earth will have together bigger mass/energy, than as a single planet with mass equal to Earth + moon.

And this is where I need to deal with the idea of changing rest mass due to kinetic force or EM radiation. I think, that we here should begin from comparing 2 scenarios, which show forces associated with potential/kinetic energy equivalence:

Of course, you don't need to be a genius, to notice couple important differences - especially, when it comes to the input/output of energy in a system of objects. But I will deal with this later, because before I will start to build anything on this ground, first I need to ensure myself, that the 100 years old ruins are completely bulldozed and turned into rubble. You might hate me for this, but in this situation, I don't have any other choice, than to treat our beloved grandpa Albert with a lethal injection and send SR to hell - where it rightfully belongs...

In fact, I don't need to do anything anymore, as 2 posts earlier, I stumbled by accident on a cable and unplugged grandpa's respirator - so he probably didn't suffer too long, after I presented here this simple equation:

√s = 2·E
So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton:
√s = 14 TeV
That is the energy available for new particle production in LHC collision.

What we have here, is a simple linear addition - and this is something, what we do in the classic Gallilean velocity addition and transformation of coordinates. It doesn't matter, if this solution was derived from SR - what matters, is the fact, that for two particles accelerated to 0,99999991c in opposite direction, total energy is ~2E and that this is easily solved with Galilean relativity. This is, what I said in my first post:

However, besides the general idea of scale-dependent geometry, he proposes a completely different solution, than I do. In his theory, he uses the idea of Einstein's time dilation, as support of the idea, that at atomic scales coordinates should undergo Galilean-like transformations, while at macroscales they should obbey Lorent's transformation
This doesn't make any sense - if SR would have any use, it would be exactly at the quantum scales, where velocities are high in relation to c and rest mass of bodies is low. What is proposed by Laurent Notalle means, that the only practical use of SR would be in a Celestial Planet Collider... All of this leads to only one conclusion - the faster you will forget about SR, the less shame you will have to endure....

Status
Not open for further replies.