ACCELERATION, MASS, FORCE, AND INERTIAL RESISTANCE
acceleration
The current concept of acceleration, using pre-defined fixed values of units of measurements requires at least three separate observations. At least two observations are needed to define the initial mathematical value of velocity, and two observations are needed to define the final value of velocity. The value of acceleration is then determined by dividing the change between the initial and final values of velocity by the associated lapse of time for that change in velocity to occur. In mathematical terms, acceleration = (V2 - V1) / ( T2 - T1).Note however, that the value of relative velocity - based on use of relative units of measurement, RELL and RELT - can never vary from either 0 or 1 because neither V1 or V2 can vary from 0 (motion is non-existant) or 1 (motion exists). As a result, the entire concept of other values of acceleration becomes simply irrelevant. Note also that the current concept of 'centifugal acceleration' is irrelevant because 'motion' is a purely scalar (rather than vector) type factor.
Force and Inertial Resistance
Current science recognizes the concept of a resisting force due to the 'inertial resistance' associated with all physical objects. Unfortionately, that relationship between applied force and inertial resisting force was erroneously named 'acceleration' by Newton who also erroneously named the inertial resistance force as 'mass'. (as discussed in the history section of this document). As a result there is a tendency to overlook the fact that every physical object must resist every applied force with an equal and opposite force. This is true whether the object to which the force is applied remains stationary or 'accelerates' during the time when that force is applied. (That equal and opposite inertial resistance force which tends to be ignored, has however been recognized for centuries as stated in one of the (correct) classical physics laws established by Isaac Newton.)If we use the symbol of 'X' to represent the mathematical value of inertial resistance and 'F' to represent the applied force, then the mathematical expression for this equality becomes simply F=X.
The mathematical value of an applied force (and therefore the inertial resistance force) may vary from zero to a very large number, depending, in part, on the selection of units for the measurement of the force. According to the most basic 'law' of classical physics, the rate of acceleration which will result from the application of force to an object is directly proportional to the mathematical value of the applied force. Expressed in mathematical terms, F = MA. That same classical physics advises that the factor called 'mass' is a universal property of any physical object which remains constant without regard to either the location of the object in the universe, or to any external forces which may be applied to that object.
However, we have already established that F=X, and it must follow that X=MA. I suggest that both the factors named 'mass' and 'acceleration' are nothing more than two imaginary mathematical equations. They are imaginary component parts of one single reality which we call 'inertial resistance', (X).
More significantly, inertial resistance, is not a factor which exists because of the property of the value of 'mass' of any specific object, but rather it exists only if and when an external force is applied to that specific object. The mathematical value of the 'inertial resistance' of an object is always exactly equal to the value of the external force being applied to that object.
I suggest that an adequate understanding of nature will result in the conclusion that the entire concept that physical objects possess a fixed, inherent property called 'mass' will eventually be discarded. As a result, the currently accepted concept of 'mass attraction' (or gravity) will be shown to contain major errors. It will be found that the concepts of mass attraction, and electrical charge are not inherent properties of specific objects, but rather are nothing more than reflections of relative motion within the space-time frame we currently recognize as our universe.
If there is no applied force on a physical object, then we are aware that there will be no change in the velocity of that object, and that zero value force (and therefore zero value X) are simply irrelevant. If however, a force is applied to a physical object, then F and X become realities, and a change in the current state of motion may become relevant.
Based on the current system of pre-defined unit values of force, the mathematical value of the force may vary from very small to vary large - depending on the selection of units (such as ounces or tons).
We now define the relative unit value of force, RELF, as being equal to 1.0 if and when relative motion exists between the two objects of interest. But since relative motion is a boolean type factor, so too then is relative force (RELF). Neither factor can exist without the other, and if one exists, then so too must the other. If they exist, the only possible value is simply 1.0. If they do not exist (are irrelevant) then the associated value of both may be considered as simply zero.
Putting it All Together - Significance of Relative Units of Measure
When we consolidate the above concepts of relative units of measurement between two specific objects in space, which are referred to as the observed and the observer, we arrive at the following conclusions.The only possible values of RELL is 0 (irrelevant) or 1 (relevant). If the value is 0 (or irrelevant), then the observed and observer are a single object (or point) within space.
The only possible value of relative motion is 0 (irrelevant) or 1 (relevant). If there is no current motion, the concept of both motion and time are meaningless. If motion does currently exist, then when the imagined amount of change in relative location is equal to the current relative unit of distance (R), based on the current rate of motion, then the imagined lapse of time (RELT) will be 1. Relative motion is a boolean, scalar type factor with no associated direction implied.
The only possible value of relative force (RELF) is 0 (irrelevant) or 1 (relevant). If there is any current relative motion then the value of both applied force (by observer) and inertial resisting force (of observed) is 1.0.
The currently accepted concepts of the words 'Acceleration' and 'Mass' are reduced to meaningless words (irrelevant) referring only to imaginary mathematical components of a single reality of inertial resistance force.
Finally, when it is recognized that every currently accepted scientific equation is based on the four parameters of distance, time, force, and mass which are mathematically combined in fashions which require equal dimensional relationships on both sides of the equation, it becomes clear that every such equation reduces to simply 1 = 1 when measurements are considered in the relative units described above.
Every currently recognized scientific equation will reduce to simply 1 = 1 because every currently recognized scientific equation (including 'mass' and 'acceleration') must, by scientific mandate, be composed of some mathematical ratio or product of the three perceivable dimensions of length, time, and force. Furthermore, every currently recognized 'universal constant' such as the velocity of light (C), Plancks constant (h), and the gravitional constant (G), will also reduce to simply 1.0.
However, it is critically important to realize that we have in no way limited or changed the observations which man may make. We have only changed the 'yardsticks' which he currently uses to explain those observations. The reality that we perceive remains unchanged - but the imaginary mathematics which we currently assume to be real is immensely simplified.
Equally significant is the fact that through the use of relative units of measurement, the space-time-force relationships for every possible pair of two objects (or points in space) is universally identical. The comparison of an electron in orbit about it's nucleus is a mathematical identity to the comparison of a galaxy about it's center of rotation.
RELATIVE COMPARISONS FOR MULTIPLE NUMBERS OF OBJECTS
The statements above are universal truths for every possible pair of two objects. If and when it is desired that more than two objects be compared, then the above relationships hold true for any two of the set, and the ratio of every other like measurement will be identical to any single ratio (using non relative type units of measurement) of like parameters. For example, if the ratio of separation distance of the third (or nth) object is twice the value of the primary pair, then, the relative units of distance, time, force, and mass will also be exactly twice that of the relative values for the first pair.This can be most easily comprehended by thinking of the manner in which we may compare the ratios of every type of measurement parameter associated with circles, if we know only the ratio of the radii of those circles. A circle with twice the radius of another has equal ratios of 2 for diameters, or perimeters. If we desire to expand the comparisons to more than one dimension (or direction in space) the the same type of ratio comparisons continue to apply, but an exponent must be included with that ratio, with the number of that exponent being equal to the number of dimensions involved in the comparison. For example, if the ratio of separation distances R1/R2 is equal to two, then the ratio of a two dimensional value such as area, would be (R1/R2)^2. Similarly, the ratio of a three dimensional value such as volume, would be (R1/R2)^3.
The use of relative units of measurement carries this process (of circle comparisons) even farther however, in that the unit of measurement of interest is based on the specific parameter of interest rather than on one pre-defined unit, such as the pre-defined length of the radius. Hence, if applied to circles, the concept would imply that the radius would be one relative radial unit. The perimeter would be one relative perimeter unit (rather than 2PI times the radius), the area would be one relative area unit (rather than PI times R squared), and the volume would be one relative volume unit rather than PI times 4/3 times R cubed).
Next: Mathematical Symbolism
Back: To Index