I've promised to make a thread about this part of my theory - so here it is...

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:

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

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:

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:

"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...

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...### 5D Space - Frequency of Cycles in Dimensional Scale

www.scienceforums.net

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:

### Fractal cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

### Scale relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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:

### Scale relativity, fractal space-time and quantum mechanics

This paper describes the present state of an attempt at understanding the quantum behaviour of microphysics in terms of a nondifferentiable space-time…

www.sciencedirect.com

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."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"

### Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter - Wikiversity

en.wikiversity.org

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: