One problem is purely practical: it is that the charts are programmed in Flash format and my programmer is in vacation - also I have to pay him for doing the job and it is very costful - secondly if you read Mandelbrott he relates time and activity
http://www.elliottwave.com/education/SciAmerican/Mandelbrot_Article2.htm):
"To create a multifractal from a unifractal, the key step is to lengthen or shorten the horizontal time axis so that the pieces of the generator are either stretched or squeezed. At the same time, the vertical price axis may remain untouched. In illustration 2, the first piece of the unifractal generator is progressively shortened, which also provides room to lengthen the second piece. After making these adjustments, the generators become multifractal (M1 to M4). Market activity speeds up in the interval of time represented by the first piece of the generator and slows in the interval that corresponds to the second piece (illustration 3)."
What Mandelbrott describes is a pure formal mathematical procedure it isn't a physical model nevertheless he relates time to activity concretly it is volume and that's what I rationally modelised not on pure abstract mathematic plan but on physical plan (the same for Einstein who made the physical model whereas he used Lorentz mathematical formalisation : he said he was a bad mathematician and without Lorentz preceding work he couldn't achieve to formalise his physical model). So my time unit is an artefact from activity and I can only do correlation with the real time clock and unfortunately statistical correlation is never precise by their very stochastic nature. That's why I said that roughly my unit time should be divided by a factor of 1 or 2 depending on the speed of the market (generally it is rather 2 by what I have observed; it is rather 1 or even more if market consolidates before so that time is slowed) and that correspond to the idea of Mandelbrott: the price level doesn't change but the time should vary following an unknown law for him since it is mathematical formalisation and not a physical model but that would cause burst of volatility. So rationally time should not be as precise as price as long as the law is unknown. And in my case rationally - I mean economically - it should be unknown since people don't buy a time but a price. Of course it will occur at a certain time but this time should rationally random around an average time.
For example for my forecast calculated on Thursday close for Friday's session the top was supposed to be done theorically at time unit 3 on scale 1 (= hourly scale) since 1 time unit = 1 hour and since I said above one need generally to divide by a factor of 2 this would give an estimation of top at 9:30 + 1:30 = 11:00. Nevertheless this is based on observation not on strong modelisation like my price model so that I don't trust it at the moment. Furthermore market can follow a counterclock path (which should correspond to the concept of retracement in time - and not only price - for elliottists or ganntistes) so that one must take this also into account by substracting the time value from a box cyle of 10 times unit which is also an experimental observation. So all I know about time is only based on experimental correlation between my time unit which is rather market's economical activity interpretated as time and not on a strong deterministic model so I don't feel like indicate a time on the chart. Also the time is only available when market is following a trend and not when it consolidates like today : You can see below that the max consolidation target which is called base in my vocabulary was 9072 and the associated time unit is 25 theorical hour but this is for the projection at 8921 and not for the consolidation at 9072 (for real we made only 9068 this I can estimate by real time calculation or use cama truncation but I won't enter in details here).
1 h 27/06/03 - 15:30 (Close: 8992.49 - DJI_60_1h_030627_153000_sf.txt)
1 base min base: 8993.61 proj: 8978.33 02:00 (17:30) | Open=8990.74
25 proj min base: [9072.98] proj: 8921.47 26:00 (41:30) | 2ndHH=9068.05
80 base max base: 9167.56 proj: [9442.27] 81:00 (96:30)
6 proj max base: 9041.96 proj: 9026.40 07:00 (22:30) | 1stLL < 1stHH=9036.95
In conclusion at the moment I don't work on absolute time but on relative time. The concept of relative time is classical since Einstein: time is the coïncidence of two events (for example the event that a train arrive at a station and the pin of the clock indicate 12 O'clock). So suffice that I know that when the price arrives near my theorical target this is the time. I only consider the first time it arrives the second time is another event and shouldn't be considered - it is often only the retest for making the classical lower high or higher low of Gann.
In the future I will work on a determistic model of time which should not be based on economical rationality directly but based on constraint imposed by my model on time then I should indicate time on my model with more strong certainty and higher precision I hope as precise as my price model although I haven't yet began the research because I'm fed up of doing laboratory research: I'm not paid to do that like Mandelbrott paid by IBM
. Fundamental research is an adventure and can be frustrating since you are not sure to achieve and find something: it is the big unknown and I don' like that as for myself I only engage when I see some light in the tunel. So for time I hopefully see some light but I wait that it become more intense that is to say I wait for inspiration to burst
. It is the way I function with creativity I let the time go because I can't force my imagination. When you invent something it is more a matter of imagination and only after a matter of science that's why a Super Cray has never invented anything because it is only capable of syllogism and not of creativity. If you want a secret: I often use forums for brainstorming that's one of the practical mean I excite my neurons to make new connexions and create new ideas
.
Quote from Walther:
Harry,
I have a suggestion. Can you put time on those green and purple charts ? It would be much more easier to understand if time on a price chart was coresponding with time on green and purple graphs.
Thanks,
Walter
