BACK TO THE BASICS
A PARADOXICAL THOUGHT PROCESS
A PARADOXICAL THOUGHT PROCESS
In the prior section, it was suggested that primitive man remained unaware of all the (future) concepts about defined dimensions and units of measurement for those dimensions. His interest was that of the distance and relative motion of each surrounding object at the current instant of existence. His interests would have been directed toward the distance between himself and those other objects which he was able to perceive. As a hunter of food, his thought might of been how "long" will it require for me to traverse the distance from my current location to the rabbit. Conversely, the threat of personal injury would have forced him to consider how far away is any threatening beast, and how quickly can it cover the distance between us. Each and every different perceived object would have been considered on it’s own merit in this very basic fashion.
While the words may not have been available at that time, this primitive man’s concept of separation distance might be termed "relative radius" of separation, and the time involved for that radius of separation to be eliminated, based on the currently perceived relative motion might be termed the "relative time" for the specific object of interest. These relative values were not based on predefined fixed dimensional units of measurement - they were based on a much more basic recognition of the currently existing, instantaneous state of relativity between the observer and each different or "relative" object. ( If the concept of "instantaneous motion" is difficult for the reader to comprehend, think of it in terms of our current definition for "average speed", but let the duration of time associated with that average value of speed decrease until it approaches zero.)
While the mathematics may not have been available at that time, when our current concepts of dimensions and equations are re-considered in terms of the primitive man’s mode of thought, the "unit of length" of relativity (L) was simply the radial distance between the observer and observed. The "unit" of "time" (T) of relativity was simply that unit of relative distance divided by the associated relative motion. The unit value of distance (L=1) divided by the unit lapse of time (T=1) would be the unit value of "velocity" relative to the observer about each different perceived object. In mathematical terms, V=L/T. This is the same equation used to determine the value of velocity in modern times. However, there is a major difference in the definition of the terms L (distance) and T (time). In the derivation discussed above, the numerical values of L and T are based on the current instantaneous state of relativity between observed and observer, and as such both values will never vary from unitary values of simply 1.0. As a result, the relative value of velocity can never possibly vary from 1.0/1.0 =1.0.
The following illustration depicts the concept of relative units of measurement.
See how simple that is?
But remember, this is all based on an instantaneous observation of the current distance (R) and relative motion when the object is at the "T=0" position. The arc (S) and final location at "T=1" are only imaginary thoughts about a future location. Therefore V is only a scalar mathematical ratio , rather than a real vector factor.
The geometry is "universal" because all linear and time factors are based on, and directly proportional to the instantaneous length of R.
Furthermore, the imaginary geometry is "reversable" because if any motion does exist, then the values of S, T, and V are automatically known to be mathematically equal to R. Conversely it is true that if motion does exist, then the value of S, R, and T are automatically known. If there is no motion, then the factors S, T, and V are all simply irrelevant.
Because motion is a scalar factor, an equal component of that factor must exist perpendicular to the plane of the page. That motion could be considered to be linear wherein the entire illustration moves perpendicular to the paper, or might be considered in a tangential form, such that a spherical geometric shape is created around the fixed center of rotation (the eyeball) while the moving point advances out of the plane of the paper. In either case the moving point advances a distance of R out of the plane of the page simultaneously with its tangential motion in the plane of the paper.
Either geometric model may be correct. It may not be a significant difference since it is all purely imaginary mathematics. The first option is easier to depict (and visualize) graphically. However, the spherical model may eventually be needed to explain a subsequent subject where sequentioal "levels" of space-time frames will be discussed. During the discussion of space-time frames, the first "level" of clocks involves the two dimensional format depicted above. The discussion of the second level of space-time clocks requires that the two dimensional depiction be expanded (perpendicular to the page) into a three dimensional model. More on this later.
Contrast the above with our modern concepts where the values of both L and T are based on some non-relative, fixed pre-defined units of measurement which are then applied to every possible observation. Using the modern concept, the numerical value of all three factors (length, time, and velocity) apply to - but are irrelevant to - the specific observation of interest. There is a major paradigm between the thought process described above as "primitive" versus "modern" mode of thought. The primitive mode emphasizes the importance of the observations, while making the "dimensional" values subservient to that specific observation. The modern mode emphasizes the importance of the pre-defined dimensional values, while making the specific observation subservient to those values.
It is extremely important to recognize that the difference does not affect what man actually perceives. It only affects the methodology used during the description of that which he perceives. If the mental block can be overcome by the reader during that paradigm change in the methodology, then we will move through three or four centuries of scientific advancement in a manner of hours. That is because the mysteries of the "modern physics" concepts in special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics will essentially evaporate as a result of return to the "primitive" concept of relative observations.
The preceding discussions have been based primarily on a sequence of logic. The writer is aware that that logic must be supported by technical evidence which supports the logic. That support is in hand, and will be provided in later sections of this document. However, the evidence (which is relatively boring) is being delayed in an effort to expedite the explanation of the much more important underlying concepts.
If the reader can understand (he need not yet necessarily accept) the paradigm change in unitary dimensional values discussed above, then there are amazing new discoveries awaiting. If that paradigm itself can not be understood by the reader, then I thank you for your prior interest -- but you need read no farther in this document.
In the next section, we begin to integrate the thoughts presented in the last two sections of this document. It will be explained how and why all the currently defined "dimensions" are simply reflections of one basic mathematical identity. Subsequent sections explain why the concepts of space-time and electro-magnetics are simply different "shadows" of a single common reality. A hypothetical three dimensional model of the combined inter-relationships will be introduced to aid the reader in the recognition of the differences between the reality and the shadows.
