In a nutshell
seven steps to understanding natural science.
Numbers are Ratios
The word 'one' (1) refers to a specific pre-agreed definition of that which constitutes the type of object or event of current specific interest. � All other 'numbers' are pure dimensionless ratios which represent some quantity (ie, number) of the specifically pre-defined object or event divided by one (1) predefined unit for that object or event. For example, the phrase 'five apples' is verbal code for the thought that there are five objects of that type of object which we have defined as one apple. � In mathematical symbology the phrase should be presented as the ratio: � 5 apples/1 apple.All Numbers are void of dimensional characteristics
By standard mathematical procedure, the name assigned to the type of object of interest appears in both the numerator and denominator of the ratio, and is therefore self-canceling from both numerator and denominator. � The result is a pure dimensionless 'number'. The process of carrying the name of the type of units of interest forward with the number is a verbal shortcut, and that shortcut must be recognized when the thought is translated into mathematical symbology.The only real time is now
Time is not a reality which flows like water in a river. � Time is simply a 'placemarker' for one current real instantaneous state of relativity between all of the perceived 'parts' of our universe. � All prior and future instantaneous states of relativity exist not in reality, but only in our mental thoughts or documented imagination (symbology).Time is a convenient tool created by man to organize the sequence of changes in instantaneous states of existence. A tool similar to the page numbers which we use to note our current place within a book. � Each instantaneous state of relativity is similar to one still frame of a movie film. � As we observe a movie we mentally convert that sequence of separate still photographic frames into a concept of a continuous 'flow' of both time and change - but that mental conversion is not representative of the 'real' content on the strip of film.
Time duration is a dimensionless ratio of some quantity of unit values of time duration (such as seconds, hours, or days) to the pre-defined unit value itself. � As such the concept of time duration is a purely imaginary factor whose mathematical value is totally dependent on any pre-definition of the 'unit' value of time duration.
The mathematics of motion
During two separate observations, the relative location between objects may change. We use the word 'motion' to report such a change. The observation of that change (motion) is indeed real. and a report that motion did occur is therefore true. However that simple truth contains no information about the direction or quantity of change which was perceived.To quantify the term 'motion', man must first create the concept of 'speed' which is another ratio comparing the previously created ratios for the number of units of distance that the relative distance changed, and the number of units of time duration between the first and last instantaneous observations. Note however that the mathematical value of speed is totally dependent on the pre-definition of the unitary measure for both distance and time duration. And the pre-definition of those unitary measures was almost certainly totally irrelevant to the current observation of interest.
To quantify the term 'velocity', man must first create the concept of a mathematical coordinate system so that he can then specify the 'direction' of the change in relative location which occurred between the first and last instantaneous observations. Only then can man combine his creations of speed and direction into an imaginary mathematical value named 'velocity'. But again, note that the choice of some imaginary coordinate system may be totally irrelevant to the current observation of motion.
While the concept that motion occurred is a true statement of reality, the statements which quantify that motion in terms of speed and velocity are based on purely imaginary mathematics. The mathematical value of speed is totally dependent of the arbitrary pre-defined unit values for distance and time duration. The mathematical value of velocity assumes the concept of speed is correct and in addition is totally dependent on the arbitrary pre-defined definition of an imaginary coordinate system.
The existence or lack of relative motion between any two objects is a natural phenomena. All current attempts to communicate our recognition of that natural phenomena through the concept we call 'velocity' should be recognized as a purely imaginary mathematical process which is totally dependent, not on the current recognition of motion, but on the units of measure, numbers and equations which were imagined into existence by man. � Those numbers and equations have meaning only in man's own educated imagination, but bear no true relativity to the actual change in instant state of relativity. � However, as a result of extensive reference to the concepts of numbers and mathematics, man currently tends to believe that those conveniences of words and numbers are the reality of nature, while the the true reality of nature (change or lack thereof) is simply a coincidence.
Due to long term conventions which are reinforced by the educational process, man currently tends to think of the concept of motion as being a characteristic which is 'owned' by a specific object of current interest. � For example, we may refer to the speed (or velocity) of an automobile as being '60 miles per hour'. Such statements conceal the actual reality that the referenced velocity implies that the value of the velocity of the automobile is only true when related to any 'fixed' point on the surface of the Earth. � And that for that state of relativity, the dimension named by man as distance and measured by man by the ratio of 60 units defined as miles is a mathematical identity to the dimension named by man as time duration and measured by man as one unit value defined by man as an hour. � That value of velocity is totally dependent on both some second object or point of reference, and on the arbitrary choice of unit values for the dimensions of both time and space.
In a later section of this document a simple, but revolutionary, concept of relativity is presented which explains the true interpretation of natural changes in the current state of universal relativity. � The mathematical process used in that concept reduces to a boolian (or binomial) system in which the 'number' zero refers to the lack of relevance, and the 'number' one refers to the existence of relativity. For example if relative motion is not currently existing, then the mathematical value for motion, speed, and velocity are all simply zero. � If relative motion is currently existing, then the mathematical value for those same three factors can never vary from simply 1.0. � This boolean system recognizes that the mathematical value assigned to motion is dependent on both the 'moving' object and the object (or point) to which that motion is referenced, and redefines the units of measure in terms of the current state of spatial separation between the 'moving' object and the object (or point) of reference for the perceived 'relative' motion.
The Mathematics of Acceleration
When only two observations (two perceived states of instantaneous relative separation distance) of two selected objects are known, man may manipulate that information to determine a ratio named motion, or average speed, or average velocity. � Omission of the word 'average' may cause a major error in thought transmission because the actual path (and distance) through which the object moved between the two observations is unknown. � If the path was non-linear, then there may be a great difference between the actual and calculated speeds and velocity. This remains so no matter how small the pre-specified unit value was imagined to be.If at least three observations are known, then man may conclude that the 'direction' of motion was either linear, or non-linear. � He may calculate a value of speed between any two consecutive observations, and a relative direction of the motion between any two concecutive pair of observations.
If the direction of motion is perceived to be constant throughout all the pairs of sequential observations, then the motion is called 'linear motion'. (Note that this may be a false assumption, because the actual path between any two consecutive observations may not have actually been linear. This remains true even when the duration of time is reduced to an imagined minimum through the use of mathematical calculus.) � If the motion is assumed to be linear, and the mathematical values of speed assumed to have remained unchanged between the first and last pair of observations, then the concept named 'acceleration' is considered unimportant for this situation and given a mathematical value of zero.
If however, the motion is linear, but the assummed values of speed are not identical, then by definition, the term 'linear acceleration' is said to have occurred, and another mathematical equation was created to establish a value for the associated linear acceleration.
On the other hand, if the motion is non-linear, but the assumed values of speed are identical, then by definition, the term 'radial acceleration' (or centripetal or centrifugal acceleration) is said to have occurred. � In which case an assumption is made that the path of the object traced through a perfectly circular arc between each triplet of sequential observations. Mathematical techniques are then used to create a value for an imagined radius of that imagined perfectly circular path, and still another equation was created to express the mathematical value of the radial acceleration in terms of the imagined speed and radius.
As a result of dogmatic education about the end equations pertaining to linear and radial acceleration, there has been a tendency for current scientific scholars to overlook all of the questionable assumptions which those terms include. And again, current scholars tend to assume that the equations represent the reality of nature, while the basic reality of motion is coincidental. Explain this
Radial and Linear Acceleration Values are interchangeable
Even though the concepts of linear and radial acceleration seem to be unrelated, it is not difficult to recognize that a simple means is available to show that the mathematical value associated with either form can be converted into a mathematical identity of the opposite form. This is possible by simply working through the mathematical assumptions in reverse order.To convert the mathematical value for linear acceleration to equal value of radial acceleration, imagine a perfectly circular arc having both radius and arc length equal to the value of the change in 'linear velocity' which occurred during one pre-defined unit of time duration. � Assign that mathematical value to an imaginary circle, and imagine that an object traces through one radian of angle along that imaginary circle during the same pre-defined unit of time duration. � The resultant mathematical values for linear acceleration imagined to exist based on observation will be identical to the mathematical value of the imagined object which moves along the circular arc. In mathematical terms dV/dT = V^/R.
To convert the mathematical value of a perceived radial acceleration to equal value of linear acceleration set the mathematical value of difference between the first and last linear velocities during one pre-defined unit of time lapse equal to the mathematical value for the length of the imagined radius on which the mathematical value for the radial acceleration was based. The resultant values of perceived radial and imagined linear acceleration are then identical. Explain this
Force and Mass are mathematical idenities
In a prior section of this document pertaining to the history of time and space, it was discussed how the concepts of a natural 'magic' inertial resistance force which is directly proportional to an applied force was demonstrated by Galileo's work. � And that the ratio of the applied force to the inertial resistance force is a mathematical constant equal to the factor we currently call 'acceleration'. � It was also discussed that these findings (in Galileo's experiments) were misconstrued by Newton when he created the concepts of 'mass' and variable 'acceleration'.With that history in mind, and the recognition that it is impossible to apply a force to any object unless that object 'pushes back' or resists with an equal and opposite force, we can recognize that the factor we call 'inertial resistance' is that same factor of equal and opposite force.
The mathematical value of 'force' and 'mass' are identities simply because 'mass' is only a word which Newton's created to replace the 'magic' inertial resistance force which was proven by Galileo's experiments. � 'Mass' is simply natures equal and opposite reaction to rebalance any force which is applied in an attempt to cause a change in the current instantaneous state of natural balance of forces (or state of motion) throughout the universe. � Mass is not a constant factor attributable to individual objects - it is a variable factor better recognized in the form of that 'magic' force which is directly proportional to any applied force. When the force being applied to an object ceases to exist, the 'mass' of that object also ceases to exist.
The only reason that the mathematical value which man assigns to the 'mass' of an object differs from the mathematical value which man assigns to the 'force' which may be applied to that same object is that science has not yet recognized either the errors in Newton's definition of 'mass', nor the relative equivalency between time and inherent in the word 'velocity'.
That same error has been carried forward in many other mathematical equations used to define the factors named momentum, work, and energy. And also into many currently accepted scientific concepts associated with potential versus kinetic energy and wave length versus frequency.
In a later section of this document a simple, but revolutionary, concept of relativity is presented which explains the true interpretation of natural resistive forces (inertia) and applied forces. � The mathematical process used in that concept reduces to a boolian (or binomial) system in which the 'number' zero refers to the lack of relevance, and the 'number' one refers to the existence of force (and inertia). For example if an applied force is not currently existing, then the mathematical value for work, torque, momentum, and energy are all simply zero. � If a force is currently existing, then the mathematical value for those same factors can never vary from simply 1.0.
Impact of above
Upon recognition of the above, we arrive at the recognition that every known factor which man has imagined to exist pertaining to motion, and associated forces are simply different mathematical treatments of one true natural change which is the existence (or lack thereof) of current instantaneous state of motion.While not detailed in the above, the currently accepted scientific-mathamatic concept referred to as 'dimensional analysis' is erroneous. The error is inherent in the belief that various factors of time, space, and force are separate natural occurrences, rather than separate mathematical perceptions of one single state of reality. During the history of our currently accepted state of science, the established rules for dimensional analysis were circumvented by simply creating a new word (such as velocity, acceleration, mass, etc) whenever those rules were violated. The creation of such words tended to obscure the reality of the equivalency of the dimensions of time, space, and force.
For example, the statement that 'velocity' is the rate of change of an object expressed in units of distance per unit of time, conceals the reality that any specified value of velocity is actually a statement of the equivalency of the quantity of pre-specified units of distance which is an identity to one pre-specified unit of time, and that identity applies only for the object said to possess the factor of 'velocity' relative to some other unstated - but assumed - reference coordinate system (such as the surface of the Earth).
The currently accepted concepts of physical science are not concepts about nature - they are concepts about words and mathematics which have been created by man himself.
(The example pages are currently under construction)
RETURN TO INDEX
;){kind=link}