Hi Wilhelmus,
You said:
"In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the mass and b. dependant on the relative velocity of subjects."
Roughly speaking yes, but that applies to coordinate time. I am referring to **proper time** in my paper. Proper time is invariant, it is proportional to the invariant interval.
Please, Wilhelmus, I almost have the impression that you are taking my suggestion to study physics as an insult, it is not meant as such. It is meant to help you communicate your ideas more effectively and also to help avoid elementary misunderstandings when reading someone else's work. You don't need to be a "specialist" in relativity or quantum mechanics but you do need to have at least a minimum background if you want to hold an in-depth discussion about these topics. The difference between coordinate time and proper time is something that is taught early on in relativity. If you don't understand the difference, you cannot claim that you understand relativity.
You said:"I never met the so called areatime that you introduce."
Well, the term is mine, but the idea of a 2+1 spacetime is not new, in fact often toy models in general relativity use this to simplify some of the mathematical difficulties to study certain situations. See for example http://books.google.com/books/about/Quantum_Gravity_in_2+1_Dimensions.html?id=C0_HROt5D8YC
You said:"Your formula's above are clear the difference is the dz^2, simply because you treat a dimension less in your so called areatime."
The difference is actually more subtle: You see, because areatime is postulated to be the lower limit, you *cannot* directly relate dx in areatime to dx in spacetime or dy in areatime to dy in spacetime. What that means is that it is not just that the z-direction vanishes, but that spacetime "as a whole" is replaced by areatime. So, strictly speaking, I should have labeled the dx and dy in the formula above for areatime with a subscript A.
You said:"However the essence of your theory is the A/V ratio."
No, the essence of my theory is its axioms. I am really surprised that you are saying this after I've been explaining several times that the A/V ratio is a **plausibility argument**. Therefore it cannot be the essence of my theory.
You said: In your exemple you begin with a sphere, but you can also take a cube I think, the surface of a cube is 6 x a^2, the volume a^3, so the mathematical ratio of A/V is always 6/a, whatever cube you take, this A/V ratio becomes very little when we go to the material universe and agree upon a "length". then you can go up and down in the ratio, if I take the Planck length as the minimal length where our physical laws are still working then you get an A/V ratio of 6/ root of hG/2pi c^2 = 6/1.6x10^-35m. In my opinion that is the minimal A/V ratio (as for now) call it the Planck A/V ratio.
if you want to posit a rigid cubic lattice as the lower limit of spacetime, you have to explain how the symmetries of spacetime are preserved, for instance how you address the length contraction problem (remember, I mentioned before that loop quantum gravity has essentially the same problem)
You said:"you still accept the arrow of time, which I don't."
I accept the definition of proper time, as defined in the theory of relativity. The arrow of time is a separate problem that is not addressed in my papers.
You said: "Both our views are as I think not compatible, but we both are exploring our own "new" reality, I am happy to discuss with you and really it gives me lots of thoughts."
Think about this: Who are you creating your theory for? If it is just for yourself, then you don't need to study relativity or quantum mechanics, you can make up whatever you want.
But I get the impression that you want to share your theory with others and get them to consider it seriously. In order for that to happen, you have to be aware of what has been done already. The reason is that otherwise it could happen very easily that your theory conflicts with things that we have already observed to be different and then your theory is shown to be wrong.
If you don't study the subject matters i.e. relativity and quantum mechanics, you won't know all the observations you have to make sure your theory agrees with. Also, it is only through the study of these subject matters that you gain an appreciation for what creating a new theory actually entails. For example, can you state what experiment can be performed to test whether your theory is correct?
You said:"take a look at the fractal universe, there you can go infinitely up and also down, without loosing or gaining any dimensions, it is in my opinion a typical mathematical universe, where ratio's are fix, so please understand that only when you inroduce a specific "agreed upon" length the ratios are also taking values that are taking avery minimal and also maximal size, it is these "relative" sizes that you and I use to explain our ideas."
I see no physical motivation for introducing fractal dimensions into my idea. Also, at this point I do have a self-contained model. What is needed at this stage is peer criticism, which has been very difficult for me to obtain.
I hope that you do take my advice seriously. Read again what `t hooft says in the introduction of his theoretical physicist page. I wish you good luck in your endeavor.
Armin