SIMPLE REALITY
In this section, a radically different concept of relativity is postulated. An effort has been made to simplify and abbreviate the description, but the reader will need some patience because what follows is, in essence, a rework of many centuries of prior development of the currently accepted scientific explanation of our physical existence. More importantly, the reader will need to be able to set aside blind acceptance of much of what he has been programed to believe during his own years of dogmatic scholastic training.
AND INSTANTANEOUS FRAMES OF EXISTENCE
Reality involves sequential instantaneous independent states of relativity. Each instantaneous state of reality may be considered as a 'frame' of reality. The historical sequence of fames may be progressively organized, but the frames are not dependent on man's belief in an averaged 'connecting' rate of change over a pre-defined 'lapse' of time greater than zero. This is analogous to a recognition that when we perceive a cinema as one single 'changing' picture, we should not forget that in reality, that single 'movie' is actually comprised of many completely independent still picture frames arranged in a sequential order.
Each single frame of reality portrays an instantaneous static state of relativity wherein the location of any single object is fixed, and the distance between any two perceived objects of interest remains unchanged. Motion or other form of change is impossible within one single instantaneous frame of existence. Because there can be no change, the currently accepted concepts of 'velocity', 'acceleration', and 'force' are meaningless within that single instantaneous frame of existence. The only concepts that remain are the uniqueness of specific 'objects', and relative separation distances between specific objects. The word 'environment' is applicable for the entire frame, including both objects and all space between identifiable objects.
The significance of the relative magnitude of separation distance is simply the total separation distance between any two objects (a 'pair') of current interest. If we wish to compare separation distances between different pairs of objects, the comparison is made by simple ratio of the relative separation distance of the first pair by the relative separation distance of the second pair. In affect, the denominator of every such ratio defines the 'relative' unit of measure of comparison for each specific comparison, and the value of the overall ratio defines the relative difference in separation distances.
The concept of some pre-defined fixed magnitude of distance referred to as a constant 'unit of measure' for distance (ie, miles, kilometers, etc,) is negated.
This form of comparison, where the denominator of a ratio of two total magnitudes of interest may be referred to as a 'relative unit of measure' is used throughout our new concept of relativity. As a result, all currently accepted concepts of pre-defined, fixed units of measure, ( as well as the mathematical concept of 'dimensional analysis') are completely nullified. Every comparative ratio is of like type perceptions, and therefore the resultant values are recognized as pure dimensionless mathematical values of 'relative' significance between like type perceptions. The term 'unit of measure' is actually only used here to assist in the communication about this concept, and actually signifies only the value of the denominator in any such ratio.
Division by 'zero' (pop-up window)
When we consider the concept of more than one single frame of reality, we are moving into a world of imagination because only one 'real' frame can exist during each historic instantaneous moment of time. Man is endowed with the capacity of memory and imagination, and the ability to record specific states of relativity. It is that capacity which enables us to compare two different instantaneous frames states of existence.
During comparison of two different frames, we may note a difference in the relative locations and separation distances between specific objects. These changes are referred to as 'motion'. The magnitude of motion is treated in a purely relativistic fashion and does not consider the magnitude of historic change in time between the two frames of interest.
The relative magnitude of the motion is defined by the ratio of total distance of separation of a specific pair of objects in the first and second frames of instantaneous relativity. The relative magnitude for 'motion' is defined in the same manner that the relative magnitudes for distance were defined when only one single frame of existence was available. Note that the concept of relative motion is devoid of any concept of the number of fixed pre-defined (irrelevant) units of time lapse between frames. The currently accepted concept of the mathematical equation named 'velocity' (involving a ratio of a number of pre-defined fixed units of distance divided by a unit of pre-defined fixed time lapse) is completely unrelated to the more basic concept of a motion..
It is possible to compare differences in the magnitudes of motion associated with different pairs of objects in the same two different frames by ratio - just as we were able to compare differences in separation distances between different pairs in a single frame.
The relative rate of motion between any two specific objects may be absent (zero) even though both objects may have moved to different locations within the overall 'environment' of the two frames of interest. This is analogous to two automobiles maintaining equal separation distances while traveling at equal rates of motion along the same highway.
The concept of a change in relative rate of motion (ie, 'acceleration' and therefore 'unbalanced' forces) continues to be meaningless when only two frames of instantaneous existence are available for analysis.
During comparison of two different frames, we may also note a difference in the unique characteristics of any one specific object. For purposes of this discussion, our interest is directed only to the 'physical' changes involving location and separation distances. 'Internal' changes such as 'aging' and 'emotion' involving any life form type objects are avoided entirely here. Changes in physical materials - not life forms - will be limited to consideration only as it relates to the effects of changes in location.
When we consider the concept of more than two frames of reality, we are moving even farther into a world of imagination because only one 'real' frame can exist during each historic instantaneous moment of time. Each additional frame is dependent on imaginary mental or documentary type information..
If three sequential frames of instantaneous states of relativity are recognized, then the relative magnitudes of constant motion associated with the first two frames can be compared to the relative magnitudes of constant motion associated with the last two frames. Any differences in the relative rates of motion can then be compared by simple ratios in the same way that separation distances, and changes in separation distance were compared above. It is these sequential changes in relative separation distances that man currently refers to as a concept of 'acceleration'. But here again, because we are now dealing with only ratios of magnitudes of change in relative distance, the concept of an inter-connecting pre-defined fixed unit of measure for 'time lapse' is avoided. The currently accepted mathematical equation named 'acceleration' is negated in favor of a more basic concept of an imaginary change in magnitude of imaginary motion.
In order to understand how currently accepted science correlates with our new concept of relativity, it is necessary to correlate the new concepts of change in motion to prior concepts that 'acceleration' is the result of an (impossible) 'unbalanced' force.
According to the currently accepted concepts the magnitude of an 'unbalanced' force is directly proportional to the concept of a change in rate of motion (ie, acceleration). We have already discussed that the word 'stress' is more meaningful than 'unbalanced force', because every 'unbalanced force' is always exactly countered by a naturally existing equal and opposite 'inertial' force that has been improperly concocted into an inproper imaginary mathematical equation. We have also discussed that Galileo's experiments proved that the magnitude of a "change in time rate of motion' is directly proportional to the magnitude of that stress. It is therefore now possible to recognize that 'acceleration' is not a concept that is caused by an 'unbalanced' force. The reality is that the a change in rate of relative motion co-exists with, and is always directly proportional to 'stress'.
It is correct to conclude that if and when a change in instantaneous rate of motion is imagined to have occurred between different frames of instantaneous reality, then so too must the concept of a 'stress' coexist during the same two different frames of reality. The magnitude of the stress is always directly proportional to the magnitude of the imagined change in rate of relative motion.
There is only one 'real' basic natural dimension. That is the magnitude of total separation distance between any two objects of current interest within any single frame of current instantaneous existence. The magnitude of distance is significant only in a purely relative way, and the only meaningful mathematical concept is limited to simple ratios in which both the numerator and denominator represent total differences between different objects of interest. The resultant numerical value of the ratio is a pure dimensionless number wherein the denominator may be considered as the 'relative unit of measure' for the comparison of current interest, and the mathematical value of the overall ratio represents the relative magnitude of the difference between the two parameters of current interest..
The only 'real' frame in historic time is that instantaneous (zero time lapse) frame that we and our surroundings currently exist within. All other frames of relativity are imaginary because they are based on mental or documentary memory of a past historic moment, or prediction for a future historic moment.
All concepts related to change and other types of currently accepted scientific dimensions and mathematical concepts are predicated on a comparison between at least two separate instantaneous frames of relativity - but only one frame can represent the 'real' current state of relativity, while all others exist only in the realm of imagination.
Because man failed to recognize that each instantaneous state of reality is independent of every other instantaneous state of reality, it was necessary to create the concept of a 'unit measure for time lapse' that interconnects the sequential states of instantaneous relativity. The currently accepted concepts of change ('motion'), rates of change ('velocity') and changes in rates of change ('acceleration') are all based on comparison of at least one imaginary frame of reality, and are mathematically dependent of that false concept of an imaginary fixed, pre-defined 'unit' of time lapse interconnecting two instantaneous state of relativity.
The currently accepted concept of 'unbalanced' forces is based on a false assumption that the naturally occurring resistance force (improperly labeled as both 'mass' and 'inertia') is itself comprised of two other imaginary mathematical concepts named 'mass' and 'acceleration'. The reality is that 'inertia' is simply that portion of a total resistance force that man has not been attributed to some other name, such as 'friction'.
Show me that again (pop-up window)
Current science falsely assumes that 'acceleration' is the result of an 'unbalanced' force. The most basic currently accepted scientific equation is that an 'unbalanced force' is equal to the product of 'mass' times 'acceleration' (F = MA). This is an improper interpretation of a more basic reality that a naturally existing equal but opposite resistance force referred to as 'inertia' always coexists, and is directly proportional to the concept of an 'unbalanced' force. There is no such thing in our universe as an 'unbalanced' force. But If the imaginary concept of 'acceleration' is accepted, then it should follow that the magnitude of the acceleration co-exists in direct proportion with the magnitude of a 'stress' at the location where the 'activating' force meets with the 'inertial resisting' force.
The concept of different 'separation' distances is a natural perception for all 'thinking' life forms. However only man tends to quantify the total separation distance in terms of a numerical value based on a ratio with an arbitrarily selected, pre-defined, fixed, 'unit of measure'.
The new concept of 'relative' separation distance, disregards all consideration of these pre-defined units of measure, in favor of a recognition that it is not the number of such units that is significant, but rather the relative magnitude of the total separation distance of current interest. In effect, the 'relative' unit of measure for distance is simply the total magnitude of distance between any two objects (or reference locations) of current interest. All comparisons between two different magnitudes of total distance should be by a ratio wherein the denominator of the first total distance represents the relative 'unit' of comparison, and the numerical value of that overall ratio represents the relative difference in magnitude between the two distances.
The concept of 'historic' time continues to exist as a factor involving the sequence in which each instantaneous frame of relativity occurs. However, because we are now considering reality in terms of instantaneous 'frames' of relativity, the concept of a lapse of time, as well as a change in relative location, within any single frame is meaningless. Changes in relativity only occur between different historic instantaneous frames of reality.
The concept of specific frames of time in the general sequence of history parallels our currently accepted concept of specific locations in the general field of space. A uniquely identifiable object (or location of interest) can exist at only one specific location during one unique frame of existence. Any imaginary change in relative locations must be accompanied by an equal imaginary corresponding change in historic time.
The magnitude of historic time lapse between two different frames of reality should not be measured in terms of pre-defined fixed 'units of measure' such as hours or seconds. Like the concept of differences in relative distance between the same two objects in sequential frames of existence, the magnitude of differences in time are meaningful only through comparison of two different separation distances. If one insists on a 'unit' measure of time lapse, then the magnitude of different time-lapses should be considered as an identities to the magnitude of difference in relative locations as outlined above.
Because each frame of existence is instantaneous (zero time lapse), the concepts of a change in distance, and a change in time within any single time frame is meaningless. Changes in locations and historic time can only occur as the result of a change in a complete frame of relative existence. The concept of 'motion' involving a change in relative location between physical objects is therefore possible only when at least two different frames of existence are compared.
If the actual separation distance between two specific objects (or reference points) is perceived to change during sequential frames (ie, different historic times) then the concept of relative motion between those objects exists. The magnitude of the relative motion is directly proportional to the perceived magnitude of the change in relative distance, and the imaginary concept of a magnitude for a relative unit of time lapse between any two frames of existence is defined as being exactly equal to the magnitude of the change in relative location.
Changes in the magnitude of distance and time lapse are interlinked and directly proportional to each other because change of any type can only occur if there is an associated change in historic time. If there is no change in relative location between two frames of existence, then the concept of a change in time, as it relates to external motion of physical objects, is insignificant. While the concept of changes in the magnitude of 'motion' are directly linked to the magnitude of a change in location, the concept of a corresponding change in the imaginary mathematical equation named 'velocity' becomes impossible, because the current concept of the ratio of dS/dT remains constant.
This is a recognition that the concepts of 'time' and 'space' are simply two different perceptions about one single reality of nature as it relates to the dynamics of physical reality. And that one single reality is a form of change we call 'motion'.
Interestingly, when there is no relative motion, then most of our current concepts of science, based on fixed, pre-defined units of measure for distance and time lapse 'works', because if there is no motion, then, then there is no associated change in the necessary variation of those relative units of measure for distance and time lapse.
However, if change in the form of motion does exist, then the concept of relativity hinted at by modern physical science becomes significant. What this document is attempting to do is to provide a better (and much more simple) explanation for that modern concept of relativity.
If the magnitude of motion is noted to change between two sequential pairs of instantaneous time frames, then the concept of a change in motion co-exists with the concept of a stress of equal magnitude associated with that change in magnitude of motion. This is a much different concept than the currently accepted scientific concept that 'acceleration' is a variable dependent of both the 'mass' and an 'unbalanced' force, which in turn are dependent on three forms of independent 'dimensions' and pre-defined units of measure for distance, time, and force. In the new concept of relativity, essentially a change in rate of motion and 'stress' have identical mathematical values, and therefore represent two different perception about one single (imaginary) reality.
continue