BASIS OF CURRENTLY ACCEPTED SCIENCE
Many centuries ago, the concept of fixed, predefined units of measure for distance, force, and time lapse was initially agreed upon as a valid tool for commerce. At that time major variations in the magnitude of relative rates of motion remained of little concern, and the units of measure were considered to be totally independent of one another, as well as any other considerations involving environmental conditions or states of relative motion. That concept of measure continues to 'work' well - as long as the measurements are made when the differences in relative rate of motion are negligible.
During later times, many new scientific concepts and mathematical equations were created based on continued use of those pre-defined units of measure for the three basic dimensions.
In more recent times, the scientific concept of 'relativity' was introduced. This concept advises that the overall magnitude associated with the dimensions and descriptive equations is a mathematical variable dependent on relative rates of motion. The variations in the overall magnitude is expressed in terms of changes in the number of the pre-defined fixed units of measure.
No one seems to have considered an equally logical approach to the concept of relativity: When the change in overall magnitudes of distance and time lapse is attributed to a change in the relative magnitude of the units of measure themselves - rather than being due to a change in the number of the pre-defined (irrelative) fixed units of measure - remarkable changes become evident. The complexities of mathematics associated with current scientific explanations is eliminated, as is the need to sub-divide our explanation into many various categories such as 'mass attraction', 'electrical charge' and differences between micro and macro areas of study.
This document discusses the major historic events that form the basis for modern physical science. The early concepts included erroneous assumptions, but continue to be dogmatically accepted by the academic community. The effect of prior erroneous assumptions on current day scientific beliefs, and alternative explanations to current beliefs are presented.
It is well known that Galileo conducted experiments in the year 1589 that proved the rate of change in motion of falling objects is independent of the weight of the falling object. But it has been overlooked that his experiments also proved that the concept later defined by a mathematical equation named 'mass inertia' is actually a pure natural force that is exactly equal but opposite to the value of the applied force which in Galileo's case was named 'weight'. The change in rate of motion may be associated with 'stress', but it should not be associated with an 'unbalanced' force such as 'weight'. The rate of change in motion is unchanged by the magnitude of an 'activating' force because the activating force (such as 'weight') is exactly counter-balanced by a naturally existing resistance force.
Explain this (pop-up window)
Both of the component factors named 'mass' and 'acceleration' that were later created and combined to define 'mass inertia' are imaginary mathematical equations that can exist only when the reality of instantaneous states of relative existence are falsely considered to be inter-connected by a third imaginary mathematical factor referred to as a 'unit of time lapse' greater than zero.
Prior to the fifteenth century, mankind was of the general belief that the Earth was located at the center of the remainder of the universe which rotated around the fixed location of the Earth. Great scientific advances were attributed to Copernicus and Kepler when they advised that Earth moves in circular (Copernicus) and elliptical (Kepler) orbits around the Sun which was considered to be absolutely stationary. Obviously, the reality of the motion of the planets did not change because of those announcements. The announced changes were due simply to an imaginary relocation of the mathematical coordinate system which was used to describe the orbital paths of the planets. Natural reality did not change - only man's explanation of reality changed. All three concepts may be mathematically correct, but are physically impossible. The concepts were physically incorrect because man was not yet aware that relative orbital motion involves mutual motion of both bodies around a common 'barycenter'.
Explain this (pop-up window))
Despite the religious and political disruptions caused by the new concepts, the greatest harm to man's progress was probably that of Kepler's introductory use of mathematics into philosophic thinking. A few years later, the mathematical concepts associated with the concept of elliptical orbits would be adopted by Newton who postulated that motion and forces are inter-related by mathematical concepts, and established the 'rules' of dynamic motion that form the foundation for current physical science.
Newton created the concept of 'mass' because he failed to recognize the significance of Galileo's demonstrated proof that for every 'applied' force, there always exists some natural form of an exactly equal but opposite 'resistance force'. Newton therefore assumed that 'unbalanced' forces exist. He then created a new imaginary mathematical concept of 'mass inertia' that duplicated the naturally existing resistance force. Natural reality involving balanced 'forces' did not change - only the way that man explained the reality in mathematical terms changed.
Explain this
If Newton had more carefully considered the results of Galileo's experiments, then he might have recognized that his new mathematical concept of F=MA should have been stated as:
After creating a false concept of mass inertia, Newton created a false concept of 'mass attraction'. He failed to recognize that the 'centrifugal' force he associated with orbital motion of a planet around an absolutely fixed location in space (ie, the Sun) was already counter-balanced by a corresponding orbital motion of the Sun with the planets, and that both Sun and planet (like all pairs of 'orbiting' celestial bodies) rotate at equal angular rate of motion on opposite sides of a specific location in space now referred to as a 'barycenter'.
Explain this
The centrifugal force associated with the rotation of a planet around the barycenter is always exactly equal but opposite in direction to the centrifugal force associated with the rotation of the Sun around that same barycenter. The ratio of the 'mass' of the two mutually rotating bodies is simply the inverse ratio of the radii of rotation around that barycenter.
Newton may have been the first person to advise that 'for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction', and he may have been the first to advise that celestial planets move in unison around a common center located between the planets. But evidently he must have recognized these things sometime after he had postulated his concepts of 'mass' and 'mass attraction', because these are the very concepts that nullify his prior concepts about 'unbalanced' forces, mass inertia, and mass attraction.
"For every activating force (F) an equal but opposite naturally occurring resistance force (M) exists, such that net resultant force is zero. The location where the activating and resisting forces meet experiences 'stress'. The magnitude of the stress will coexist with some form of change in equal proportion to that stress. That portion of the stress which is not otherwise attributable to a recognized resistance force such as structure, friction, pressure, or temperature may appear in the format of a change in the rate of motion of the stressed object. If so, the magnitude of the change in rate of motion (A) will be directly proportional to the magnitude to the 'unbalanced' portion of the opposing forces. Let us refer to that portion of the total naturally existing resistance force that corresponds with the motion as inertia."
Einstein recognized that Newton's concepts of unbalanced force and changes in rates of motion was flawed, and resultant errors increased as the relative rate of motion increased. He recognized the concept of 'relativity'. To explain the concept he combined the imaginary concepts named 'mass' and 'energy', and advised that the number of pre-defined fixed units of measure for distance, time lapse, and 'mass' are variables that are a function of the rate of relative motion.
If Einstein had considered that perceived change in the magnitudes of distance and time lapse should be attributed to a change in the magnitude of the units of measure themselves, rather than a change the the number of fixed units, then not only would science have been greatly simplified, but perhaps he would have recognized the more basic errors that continue to be propagated due to a dogmatic belief in false concepts originally postulated by Newton.
Explain this
The concept of constant 'velocity' as the result of a change in the magnitude of fixed units of measure is partially accepted in the 'wave' theory. Here the unit of measure of distance of primary significance is referred to by a variable named 'wave length'. Unfortunately, the theory continues to be based on existence of a fixed pre-defined unit of measure for time-lapse with the result that 'frequency' is considered as a unique character of a wave, rather than simply a recognition of the variable number of wave lengths that pass a fixed location in space during one complete pre-defined fixed unit of time lapse.
If the wave theory had recognized that the 'units' of measure for both distance and time-lapse are relative to, and directly proportional to, changes in rates of motion, then the conflict of the concept of changing values of 'velocity' (accepted for motion of objects, but rejected for motion of waves) would have been resolved as simply a mathematical constant which is unrelated to the more basic reality of relative motion. Motion, distance, and time-lapse might have been recognized as being simply three different perceptions about one single natural reality of 'change'. Furthermore, the conflict about 'acceleration' associated with 'unbalanced' force (recognized in motion of objects, but ignored in motion of waves) might then have been recognized as simply two different perceptions about one single form of reality. And finally, the concept of a maximum possible limit of 'velocity' as the 'speed of light' might have been recognized as another unnecessary (probably wrong) concept.
Planck tailored his thoughts around prior concepts of wave motion rather than motion involving physical objects..
He postulated that waves are comprised of individual parts named 'photons' which had individual properties of 'momentum' that were independent of the overall characteristics of the entire wave.
Explain this
Had he considered entire waves to be analogous to unique freight cars within an overall railroad train, then he might have recognized that the 'photons' were analogous to the molecules that make up one freight car, frequency is analogous to the rate at which the freight cars pass the location of a fixed sensor (counter), and that the concept of variations in 'momentum' are not due to the difference in individual photons or molecules, but rather to the number of waves (freight cars) or photons (molecules) that arrive during one pre-defined fixed unit of time lapse..
Explain this
The current concern of the scientific community about 'black holes' and 'dark matter' is due to the failure of the academic experts to recognize that Newton's concept of 'mass attraction' is a false concept based on flawed mathematics rather than on the reality of nature.
Explain this
That same lack of recognition has given rise to the belief that electrical 'charge' is something that requires a different concept of descriptive terms and equations from 'mass attraction'.
In the next section, a radically different and greatly simplified concept of relativity is postulated that can replace centuries of prior activity that resulted in the currently accepted mathematical explanation of our physical existence.
Continue