SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIVITY
The physical perceptions of distance, force, time, and motion can be recognized to be three different perspectives pertaining to one singular instant of relativity. The perceptions named distance, time, and force all may be assigned equal mathematical values, while the false concept of 'constant mass' must be discarded completely, or else recognized to be nothing other than a variable force that always exists in equal but opposite magnitude to every 'unbalanced' applied force. The net force at every location within the universe is always zero.
The relative magnitude of distance between any two objects or imagined locations in space may be obvious and very significant to man and all other thinking creatures. However the assignment of a unique mathematical number to that same magnitude of distance, based on a mathematical ratio of the actual distance to an arbitrary pre-defined fixed 'unit' of measure is irrelevant to every creature other than to that portion of mankind who have been 'educated' into acceptance of the concept of predefined fixed units of measure, numbers, and mathematical procedures.
If the concept of a number determined by ratio of the actual 'relative' distance to the predefined fixed unit of measure is replaced by a concept that the relative unit of measure is a variable which is defined simply as an identity to the current (instantantaneous) actual separation distance of current interest, then the only possible mathematical value for all actual separation distances is simply 1.0.
If there is no ongoing change in the currently existing relative distance between the two objects or locations of interest, then the concept of a change in time (or time lapse) is also irrelevant to that concept of current interst. However, if there is ongoing change in the relative location, then the concept of a time lapse which is synonomous with that change in location is significant. For any real instantaneous rate of change in location, the magnitude of the change in relative location will be directly proportional to the actual duration of the pre-defined 'unit' of measure for time lapse.
If, by definition, the relative unit for measure for ‘time lapse’ (dT) is set equal to unity when the unit of measure for distance (dS) between the location of an object at the start and end of the unit of time lapse is also set equal to unity, then the only possible mathematical value for the ratio dS / dT is 1 / 1 =1. That ratio is recognized in current science by the name ‘velocity’.
If every instantaneous state of relativity is uniquely independent of every other instantaneous state of relativity, then the relative units of measure defined in the preceding statement are also uniquely independent of all other relative units of measure. In which case, the value of the mathematical ratio named velocity can never vary from simply 1.0, and that ratio named ‘velocity’ is independent of all perceivable variations in absolute rates of motion.
Currently accepted science includes two different definitions for the word 'acceleration'. The first and most commonly recognized definition relates to the percevable reality of change in the rate of motion of an object. This definition is represented mathematically by the ratio of dV / dT with the value based on reduction of that ratio so that the time lapse (dT) factor is 1.0. In that format the eqution reduces to simply V = dS where dS is the mathematical difference between the ratios of actual distances divided by predefined fixed units of measure at the initial and final instants of a single predefined fixed unit of time lapse. In terms of relative units of distance, the 'velocity' is constant (only the relative units of measure vary with the real perceivable change in rate of motion).
The other, lesser recognized, definition of 'acceleration' can be derived by rearrangement of Newton's equation that force is mathematically equal to mass times acceleration (F=MA). By reorgination to A = F/M, the mathematical value for acceleration is considered to be directly proportional to applied unbalanced force because mass is currently considered to be constant for every specific object.
If the mathematical value of ‘velocity’ can never vary from unity, then the mathematical concept referred to by the word ‘acceleration’ ceases to have significance (from A = dV/dT). If the concept of ‘acceleration’ ceases to have significance, then the concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force ceases to have significance (from F = MA). And finally we have reached the crux of the existing flaws in the currently accepted concepts of the dynamics of physical science which have been erroneously promulgated for 400 years.
The concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force, upon which currently accepted science is based, is an obvious physical impossibility. It is absolutely impossible for any form of force to be applied without the coexistence of an equal but opposite force. Man may fail to recognize the simplicity of that reality - but nature does not. The existence of a resistance force has existed for centuries, but the reality that it’s magnitude is always exactly equal and opposite to every ‘applied’ force has not been recognized. Galileo referred to a naturally existing resistance force by the word ‘inertia’. Tthe existence of such an inertial force was proven during his experiments to demonstrate that the rate of free falling objects is independent of the weight of the objects.
Newton complicated Galileo’s concept of inertial forces when he postulated the concept of ‘mass’. According to Newton, ‘mass’ is an inherent property of every physical object having a mathematical value that is independent of the location, rate of motion, or change in the rate of motion of the object. He defined the mathematical value of ‘mass’ in terms equivalent to force times the inverse value of ‘acceleration’. He then created an imaginary mathematical equation to advise that an ‘applied’ force is equal to mass times acceleration. A statement equivalent to advising that
which is a very confusing way to advise that Applied Force = Inertial Force. There was simply no necessity to introduce the concepts named ‘Mass’ and ‘Acceleration’ into the equation postulated by Newton. He might have simply advised that Applied force = Inertial force. We might forgive Newton for this indiscretion, but is difficult to understand how the absurdity has been dogmatically accepted without question for the intervening 400 years!
It becomes clear from this simplification that the resisting force is independent of motion. If there is no apparent change in the rate of motion of the object to which the 'applied' force is exerted, then the resistance is no longer referred to as 'inertial' resistance - it is simply referred to as some form of 'structural' resistance.
To rectify the absurdity, we may continue to recognize the reality of variations in the concept of ‘applied force’, but it should now be recognized that the net force in existence at each and every location within the physical universe can never vary from zero. A more descriptive recognition of the reality of a perceived unbalanced ‘applied’ force might be to use the currently accepted concept of ‘existing stress’. The concept of stress recognizes the existence of equal but opposite forces acting on a specific object (or location in space) while avoiding the concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force.
When applied to the concept of relative units of measure as a replacement for the concept of imaginary arbitrary predefined fixed units of measure, it is logical to assign a value of 1 unit of relative stress being that amount stress which coexists with one relative unit of distance during 1 relative unit of time lapse. The only possible values of distance, time lapse, and stress is 1.0 when associated with any specific physical object. And during comparisons of more than one object, the ratio of any one perception (distance, time lapse, or stress) applies equally to each of the other like type perceptions.
At this point we have defined the only three physical perceptions as mathematical identities. Three different perceptions about each and every one single state of reality. But since every other scientific concept (such as those named momentum, impulse, torque, work and energy) is comprised of a mathematical combination of the three basic ‘dimensions’ of distance, time, and force, it must follow that the only possible mathematical value for each and every one of those named concepts must also resolve to simply 1.0. Here again, if any one comparison of two different states of reality is perceived to vary, then the ratio of that perceived perception must apply equally to every other like type scientific concept.
Every scientific concept has only one possible mathematical value which is totally independent of the currently accepted arbitrary, predefined, fixed units of measure. And yet there is no limitation on the ability to perceive variations in the comparative magnitude of real (or imaginary) states of reality.
back to Orbits
back to Geometrry
back to Calculus
back to Logarithms
return to DIALOG page
Home Index