## THE FANTASY OF OUR REALITY

### INTRODUCTION

The concept of fixed predefined units of measure for distance, force, and time lapse was first postulated at a time when measurements involved comparisons and exchange of goods under static (zero relative rate of motion) conditions. Under that set of static conditions, adjustment to pre-defined fixed units of measure due to variations in rates of motion was not considered, nor required.

When man’s interests expanded into attempts to explain nature (ie, philosophy and science) the original concept of fixed units of measure was carried forward, with no consideration given to the possible effect of rates of motion on measurement techniques.

Following more recent discoveries in the area of electromagnetism and astronomy involving extremely rapid rates of motion, the oversight resulted in confusion. New mathematical theories and scientific vocabularies were postulated during attempts to resolve that confusion. As a result, it is currently erroneously accepted that nature follows four different sets of rules involving ‘strong’, ‘weak’, ‘electromagnetic’, and ‘gravitational’ forces.

All of these categories can be recognized as following the same singular set of behavior patterns through recognition of the difference between actual instantaneous frames of existence and the 'averaged' changes which are assumed to occur during an arbitrary mathematical concept of one predefined fixed unit of 'time lapse'. The recognition of instantaneous rates of motion involving absolute zero time lapse invalidates the meaning of the equation named 'velocity' due to a value of zero in the denominator of the equation. This leads to the recognition that units of measure for distance and time lapse must be variable in direct proportion to the actual instantaneous state of relative rate of motion, and that the reality of relative rate of motion is completely unrelated to the averaged value associated with the imaginary mathematical equation named 'velocity'.

I believe that in due time, the academic community will eventually be forced into recognition of this concept because future attempts for understanding will continue in a state of confusion until this concept is eventually recognized. Mysteries involving concepts such as ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’, ‘zero point energy’ and ‘time travel’ will then be recognized to be due to imaginary mathematics, rather than due to natural reality.

After many attempts to explain and justify the basis for this alternate concept of theoretical science, I now realize that the resistance due to academic dogma is much too great for me to overcome in this lifetime. The following is therefore intended for record purposes only. No attempt will be included to explain the development of this new concept, nor to justify why the new concept is necessary. It will only summarize the concept, and show the amazing results when the concept is applied. Details are amply available in my prior documentation.

### INSTANTANEOUS RATES OF MOTION

Currently accepted concepts involving variations in rate of motion are based on acceptance of the mathematical equation named ‘velocity’ (distance of travel divided by the associated time lapse, or in mathematical symbolism V = dS/dT). It is normal practice to reduce both the numerator and denominator of that ratio to a value corresponding to one single unit of time lapse, with the results stated in terms such as 'velocity = X miles per (single) hour, or velocity = X feet per (single) second'. Note that for that reduced equation, the mathematical value of 'velocity' must be identical to the mathematical value of the distance of travel (V=dS), and it is evident that two entirely different perceived concepts involving rate of motion and distance of travel are mathematical identities. The values which comprise the equation named 'velocity' are also based on an assumption that predefined magnitudes referred to as the ‘units of measure’ for distance and time lapse are independent of each other, as well as being unaffected by variations in the rate of motion which the ‘velocity’ factor is assumed to represent.

The equation V = dS/dT demands that the magnitude of time lapse (dT) must be greater than zero. If the time lapse associated with a change in location is zero, then it must follow that the value of velocity is infinity. That equation for ‘velocity’ therefore always represents an averaged rate of motion over some real lapse of time greater than zero. This holds true even when the magnitude of time lapse is considered to 'approach' zero in accord with the mathematical concept named 'calculus'.

The alternate concept recognizes units of measure for distance and time lapse as variables that are both directly proportional to the instantaneous rate of motion. As a result, the imaginary mathematical ratio named ‘velocity’ (dS/dT) is no longer related to actual rates of motion, and is recognized as simply a mathematical constant.

That mathematical constant named ‘velocity’ can be simplified by re-defining the variable magnitude of a single relative unit of measure for distance as equal to the total distance of travel during one single unit of relative time lapse. By this definition, the numerical values of ‘velocity’, distance of travel, and corresponding number of units of time lapse all become equal to a constant which has a numerical value of simply 1.0, and which is totally independent of actual instantaneous rate of motion.

As the actual instantaneous rate of motion changes, the magnitude of relative units of measure for both distance and time lapse change at exactly the same rate as the instantaneous rate of motion, but the ratio of the change in distance versus associated change in time lapse (ie, the mathematical value for the equation named ‘velocity’) remains constant at 1.0.

When motion exists, the currently accepted concept of ‘velocity’ involves some distance of travel during that (greater than zero) time lapse, and that travel distance must have some associated direction through space. Therefore, it is currently accepted that the factor named velocity is ‘vector’ factor involving both magnitude and direction of travel.

In the alternate concept, there is no time lapse associated with the instantaneous rate of relative motion, and therefore there can be no actual travel distance during the zero lapse of time. The instantaneous relative rate of motion has no associated travel distance or direction, and is therefore a pure scalar rather than a vector type factor.

The new concept does not affect our current understanding and perceptions of differences in actual conditions and relationships which are recognized during different historic time frames. The concept does however eliminate the belief in 'time lapse' as a unique form of reality unto itself that can be mathematical manipulated independently of the historic conditions in such a way that the 'average' change is confused with the actual instantaneous conditions, and variations which have occurred between an initial and final historic time frame.

### CHANGES IN INSTANTANEOUS RATES OF MOTION

The mathematical equation named ‘acceleration’ is defined as the ratio of a change in the value of ‘velocity’ per unit of time lapse (A = dV/dT). That equation becomes meaningless (zero value) when the equation named velocity is recognized as simply a mathematical constant since the factor dV can never vary from zero.

These revisions in the mathematical values named ‘velocity’ and ‘acceleration’ in no way change the reality that there is an infinite variety of possible variations in both the actual instantaneous rate of motion, and changes to those instantaneous rates of motion during various historic moments. The reality remains unchanged, while only the techniques used to describe that reality change.

Various magnitudes of identical type perceptions, such as two different rates of motion, two different distances and two different time lapses can still be compared by direct ratios. But those variations are no longer dependent on a concept of pre-defined fixed units of measure for distance and time lapse. The magnitude of any actual rate of motion must now be recognized as an instantaneous value which is independent of a lapse of time, and therefore independent of the mathematical equations named ‘velocity’ and ‘acceleration’. which combine more than one type of perception, such as ratios which incorporate a combination of the perceptions of distance and time lapse.

In essence, the concepts of distance of travel and associated time lapse associated with ‘velocity’ become mathematical identities despite the fact that they are entirely different forms of our physical perceptions. Furthermore since the relative unit of measure for distance and time lapse are mathematical identities which have both been equated to unity, the mathematical value defined as ‘velocity’ is also equal to unity. ( dS = dT = V = 1.0 for every possible rate of motion, even though there are still an infinite possible different actual rates of relative motion.)

### RADIAL AND LINEAR ACCELERATION

Because the currently accepted concept referred to as 'acceleration' treats 'velocity' as a vector (rather than scalar) concept, a change in the direction of motion carries equal significance to a change in the rate of motion. Different mathematical equations have been postulated for determination of the acceleration associated with changes in 'velocity' (linear acceleration), and forces associated with changes in the 'direction' of motion while the ''velocity' remains constant (radial or centrifugal acceleration).

Both of those equations are dependent on a lapse of time greater than zero, and include an arbitrary assumption (which may or may not represent the reality) that ongoing change remains consistent throughout that lapse of time. The resultant values associated with linear and radial acceleration are not factors defined by nature, but simply values which result from man's assumptions about the geometry of the paths of the motion involved during one fixed predefined unit of time lapse.

Based on the concept of fixed predefined units of time lapse, the mathematical values associated with linear acceleration and radial acceleration are identical when it is assumed that the change in distance of travel per unit of time lapse (for linear acceleration) is equal to the distance along an arc (for radial acceleration) that subtends a central angle of 1.0 radian per unit of time lapse.

It becomes obvious that the magnitude of an 'unbalanced' force due to 'acceleration' is not the result of the motion itself - but simply a result based on the assumptions made about the path of the motion which the object has moved through during some lapse of time greater than zero.

As has already been discussed, the new concept presented in this document nullifies the concept of a change in the mathematical equation named 'velocity', with the result that the mathematical equation named 'acceleration' is meaningless. Furthermore, because the new concept is based on an instantaneous rate of motion, the historic path through which motion occurs, and the entire concept of 'averaged' changes associated with predefined 'time lapse' is simply eliminated from consideration.

In effect, the acceptance of the concept of relative units of measure for distance and time lapse, eliminates the currently accepted concept of analog type time lapses while retaining the concept of differences in historic times. Time, like physical locations in space, becomes recognized as an isolated digital condition, rather than as an analog type function.

### PARALLELS TO CURRENTLY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS

In some respects, this concept of actual variations in distances and time lapses due to variations in the rate of motion is very similar to, but much more simple than, the currently accepted concept of relativity as postulated by Einstein. However this new concept explains those variations in terms of variable units of measure which are relative to the rate of motion. This is in contrast to the currently accepted concept that the actual variation must be explained in terms of mathematical equations involving numbers associated with arbitrarily pre-defined fixed (ie, non-relevant) units of measure.

The new concept is also somewhat parallel to the concepts currently used to explain electromagnetic wave motion wherein the ‘velocity’ of waves within specific environments must remain constant when defined in terms of ‘wave length’ and ‘frequency’ (ie, distances and inverse time lapses) which are relative to the constant rate of motion of the wave.

The concept of travel distance being directly proportional to travel time is also evidenced when we consider the ‘velocity’ as indicated on an automobile speedometer. A speedometer is cleverly designed to mechanically indicate current instantaneousrates of motion associated with the current instantaneous rate of rotation of a wheel. We are aware that, based on that current instantaneous ‘velocity’, the lapse of time postulated for travel through any magnitude of distance of interest is directly proportional to the distance of travel of current interest.

Interestingly, when the relative rate of motion between objects (or concepts) of interest is zero, then man’s original concept of fixed units of measure still ‘works’ just as well as it did in ancient times - because the concept of a lapse in time (and all the associated mathematical equations based on a lapse in time) ceases to be a factor of consideration. There is no variation in the relative units of measure because there is no associated change in relative rate of motion.

### THE MYTH REFERRED TO AS ‘UNBALANCED’ FORCE

The famous basic scientific concept that an ‘unbalanced’ force is mathematically equal to the product of ‘mass’ times ‘acceleration’ (F = MA) runs into serious question when the only possible value for ‘acceleration’ is zero. If the equation were true, then the mathematical value assigned to the real perception of an ‘unbalanced force’ could also only be equal to zero (based on use of relative units of measure), and would be totally independent of the magnitude of the factor named ‘mass’. The mathematical equation F=MA must therefore either be discarded or reevaluated because when the only possible value of ‘acceleration’ is zero, then so too is the only possible value for force equal to zero.

This evaluation becomes simple when we recognize that ‘mass’ is nothing other than a mathematical equation created by Newton during his attempts to explain the naturally occurring resisting force which opposes any change in the current instantaneous rate of motion. Galileo first referred to this phenomena as ‘inertia’.

Unfortunately, Newton postulated that the pure resistance force which Galileo referred to as ‘inertia’ is comprised of two imaginary mathematical factors named ‘mass’ and ‘acceleration’. Newton advised that when the magnitude of those two imaginary mathematical equations are combined by multiplication, then the result is equal to an imaginary factor that he referred to as an ‘unbalanced’ force. (Unbalanced Force, F=MA) An ‘unbalanced’ force is simply that portion of an ‘applied’ force which is not otherwise defined by man in terms such as ‘friction’, ‘viscosity’, or ‘drag’. The magnitude of the ‘unbalanced force’ is always exactly equal to the opposing resistance force which he associated with his erroneous concept of ‘inertia’.

Because the resisting (inertial) force is exactly equal but opposite to any ‘unbalanced’ applied force, the net total force acting at every point within our physical universe is equal to zero. When the equation F=MA is interpreted such that the force factor (F) is considered to include all of the forces acting in the direction of a change in motion, then it is also clear that the other side of the equation (MA) is nothing other than a pure resistance force which is exactly equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction, to the total of the forces acting in the direction of that change in motion. The net force at that location is therefore zero, and the value of the mathematical equation named ‘acceleration’ is zero. The reality that should be associated with the mathematical equation F=MA is nothing other than simply:

‘total activating force = total resistance force’
or
‘unbalanced’ force = total applied force minus all other named forces’

It may help to think of the current concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force as a compression or tension ‘stress’ which exists at the location where the unbalanced force is considered to be applied. The magnitude of the stress at that location is directly proportional to the magnitude of the imagined ‘unbalanced’ force.

The maximum magnitude of the stress is limited to the resistance capacity of the material existent at that specific point where the ‘unbalanced’ force was presumed to exist. When the stress exceeds the resistance capacity of the material at that specific point, the effect depends on the characteristics of the material at that location (solid, malleable, liquid, or gaseous). If the material subjected to the stress is solid and not otherwise restricted by an associated structure, then the object to which the material is a part will undergo a change in it’s rate of motion. If the material is malleable then it may be deformed. If the material is liquid or gaseous, then it will be either redistributed or compressed. If the overall object to which the stressed location has adequate structural strength to resist deformation, then that stressed location may remain stationary and un-deformed, and will provide a resisting level of force which exactly matches the applied level of force. (deformation will actually occur, but may be so minor that it is not recognized. The effect is known to scientists as ‘compression’ or ‘tensile’ strength associated with various solid materials.) The response characteristics of materials may also be subject to variations in environmental conditions and also due to variations in the rate at which the level of stress is applied. For example, a material which is referred to as ‘ductile’ when stress is increased slowly, may become ‘brittle’ when the stress is increased very rapidly. Similarly a ‘liquid’ may change to a ‘solid’ or a ‘gas’ due to environmental variations.

Man may sense an apparent 'unbalanced' force during a change in the current rate of motion of an object. However, that 'unbalanced' force exists only if and when the equal but opposite inertial force exists - in which case the actual net force continues to be zero. That zero net force coexists with a 'stress' at the location where the 'unbalanced' force is assumed to exist. The magnitude of that stress is directly proportional to the change in the rate of motion. And the change in the rate of motion in turn results in the equal change in the magnitude of the relative units of measure for distance and time lapse.

When evaluated in terms of relative units of measure for distance and time lapse, the mathematical value named velocity remains constant, the mathematical value named acceleration is zero, and there is no 'unbalanced' force. All that remains are the realities of a 'stress' at that location where man imagined the 'unbalanced' force to exist, and a change in the rate of motion of the object of current interest relative to a stationary observer.

However since man does not currently acknowledge the change in relative units of measure associated with the change in the rate of motion, he is forced to the conclusion that the mathematical number of his arbitrary, predefined, fixed units of measure must vary, and therefore that the imaginary mathematical ratio named 'velocity' must vary. But since he accepts that change in the value assigned to 'velocity', he must then accept that imaginary mathematical value named 'acceleration' must be other than zero. And he is then forced to the circular conclusion that it must be true that an 'unbalanced' force does indeed exist.

### THE MYTH OF ‘MASS ATTRACTION’

After recognizing that the net force acting at every location within our universe is always zero, we are forced to turn our attention to the mathematical concept referred to as ‘mass attraction’ or more simply, as ‘gravity’.

Newton postulated the imaginary concept named ‘mass attraction’ during his attempts to explain how the planets remained in orbit around the Sun. He postulated that an ‘unbalanced’ centrifugal force must exist due to the non-linear motion of the planets as they orbited some fixed location in space. That fixed point might have been the center of the Sun as postulated by Copernicus, or it might have been the focus of an elliptical orbit as postulated by Kepler. But however it was selected, the location was considered to be absolutely immovable within the physical universe. As a result, all relative motion involving the orbiting planets was attributed solely to the motion of planets relative to that fixed location in space.

The mathematical equation postulated to explain centrifugal force is based on the radial distance and relative velocity of a single object as it rotates around a fixed point in space. (Centrifugal force = ‘mass’ times square of tangential velocity divided by radius of rotation.) The equation may be mathematically correct, but it is based on an impossible physical situation. For any constant rate of motion, when the value of the radius decreases toward a value of zero, the force associated with the ‘centrifugal’ acceleration must approach infinity or else the mass associated with the force must approach zero. Either assumption involves pure mathematics, but can not occur within our physical universe.

At the time he postulated the concept of mass attraction, Newton searched for some source of a centripetal force that would equal the magnitude of the centrifugal force indicated by the equation for centrifugal force. Unfortunately, he improperly concluded that the needed centripetal force is independent of that same relative motion that he assumed was the cause of the centrifugal force.

Later in his life, Newton observed that all celestial planets which are in orbit, operate as a singular system comprised of two separate bodies, both of which orbit at equal rates of rotation on opposite sides of a center of rotation (currently referred to as the ‘center of mass’ for the singular system). However, it apparently has gone undetected that that common center of rotation is located at a fixed point in space where the centrifugal force existing on one of the two bodies is exactly equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the centrifugal force acting on the other body.

It follows that a line of opposing constant tensile force must exist through the space between the two bodies. That tension force will be exactly neutralized at the center of rotation. Because the two bodies are in mutual rotation as a single system which is connected by that constant line of tensile force, there was never any need for the creation of the new imaginary force that Newton referred to as ‘mass attraction’

Because that line of force through space is not physically perceivable by man, Newton simply failed to realize that the two apparently unconnected celestial bodies in mutual rotation around a common center comprised one single physical system. He is properly credited however with the actual observation about the relationship of the relative motion involving the two celestial bodies in mutual rotation around a common center of rotation. He is also properly credited with the basic concept of forces being transmitted through space. Unfortunately he failed to understand the true source of the force being transmitted through space, and created a false concept of a three dimensional ’mass attraction’ emanating from isolated physical objects - as opposed to the reality of the a linear line of tensile attraction toward the center of rotation of a single two body system.

Had Newton recognized the reality that the two bodies comprise a single physical system, then he could have also recognized that there was no need for the concept of ‘mass attraction’ in the form which he had previously postulated it. The significant physical relationships did not involve ‘mass’, but simply the realization that the magnitude of the ratio of ‘masses’ is simply the inverse value of the ratio for the radii of rotation, and also of the magnitude of the relative rates of tangential motion.

M1 / M2 = R2 / R1 = V2 / V1 while V1 / R1 = V2 / R2

Where the magnitudes of the radii (R1 and R2) and velocities (V1 and V2) are all based on a coordinate system centered at the mutual center of rotation. The creation of the word and the entire concept of ‘mass’ and ‘mass attraction’ was completely unnecessary.

### WORK, ENERGY, TORQUE, AND MOMENTUM

The concept of ‘work’ and ‘torque is dependent on the concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force acting through some amount of distance. The concept of ‘impulse’ is dependent on the concept of an ‘unbalanced’ force acting through some amount of time lapse. The more modern concepts of wave length and frequency are also dependent on a concept of a lapse in time greater than zero.

Other currently accepted scientific concepts, such as energy, are in turn dependent of a prior concept such as those above. And every currently accepted scientific concept can be traced right back to a dependence on the concept of arbitrarily selected, fixed units of measure for distance and time lapse which are independent of variation due to changes in the actual instantaneous rate of motion.

These currently accepted concepts are all simply words, defined by mathematical equations, created by man’s imagination during his attempts to explain nature based on man’s own assumption that the arbitrary fixed units of measure for distance and time lapse are independent of associated rates of motion.

When the concept of relative units of measure is accepted, then all such equations resolve to a mathematical value of 1.0 because all are based directly or indirectly on instantaneous states of existence which do not involve a concept of a ‘lapse’ in time.

As stated before, the acceptance of relative units of measure in no way influences various magnitudes of that which mankind is able to perceive - but it does influence the manner in which those perceptions have been previously explained through use of imaginary mathematical equations.

Differences in the magnitude of any perception can still be explained in terms of direct ratios involving identical types of perception - but the current practice of creating mathematical equations which combine more than one single type of perception is negated.

Much more interesting is the realization that if the ratio of the magnitudes for any one type of perception (or currently accepted scientific definition) is known, then the numerical value associated with that ratio will also apply to the ratio of the magnitudes for every other perception or currently accepted scientific definition. For example, if it is perceived that the rate of motion of one object is twice that of a second object, then it automatically must follow that ratio of relative units of measure for both distance and time lapse, as well as the ratio of associated factors referred to as potential work, energy, mass, etc. is also double.

'Momentum', like 'Mass' is an imaginary mathematical equation. It can exist only when there is an imaginary 'unbalanced' force that causes a change in the current instantaneous rate of motion of an object. And, as with 'mass' the magnitude of 'momentum' is directly proportional to the change in the rate of motion. There is no way to physically establish the values of either the 'mass', or the 'momentum' of a physical object except to observe the effect of an imaginary 'unbalanced' force on the change in rate of motion of that object.

### PARTICLE VERSUS WAVE THEORY

Scientists have been confused by dual theories used to explain differences between the motion of individual particles (such as ‘photons’, ‘quantum’, and ‘objects’), and the motion of waves (such as ‘electromagnetic signals’).

When motion is considered to be involve one unique object by itself, then motion is explained in terms of the total change in location that occurs during the total time lapse. The rate of motion is expressed by the equation for ‘velocity’ involving the number of predefined, fixed units of distance of travel per one fixed predefined unit of time lapse.

However, when motion is considered to involve the reoccurrence of many identical events, then the total travel distance and time lapse is sub-divided into equal segments. The number of those segments that must be added together to comprise one complete single unit of time lapse is referred to as ‘frequency’ and the length of travel per sub-division is referred to as ‘wave length’. Thereafter, the ‘velocity’ is of a wave is no longer treated in terms of distance per unit of time, but is described as a mathematical product of the frequency times the wave length.

In effect, the ‘frequency’ is the number of complete wave lengths that arrive at a fixed sensor (or observation location) during one complete pre-defined fixed unit of time lapse.

It would be equally logical to advise that, each ‘wave’ is comprised of some number of identical individual parts (perhaps photons?), and that the ‘velocity’ of each part would be equal to the ratio of one wave length divided by a lapse of time equal to the inverse value of ‘frequency’. In which case the individual parts of the complete wave are treated in accord with the description of ‘particle’ dynamics, while the entire family of parts is simultaneously being treated in accord with ‘wave’ theory. The mathematical value associated with the ‘velocity’ of the sub-part as particles is V = distance / time lapse = (wave length)/(1.frequency) is be identical to the mathematical value of complete wave train based on wave theory where V = frequency times wave length..

It is equally logical to think of the word ‘frequency’ in terms of the number of complete waves that arrive at a fixed counter during one full pre-defined fixed unit of time lapse - or as the number of component parts of the wave that arrive at a fixed counter during the fractional part on one unit of time equal in magnitude to the inverse value of ‘frequency’.

When this latter concept is accepted, then the scientific concept referred to as ‘Planck’s Constant’ (E=hf) can be explained as the number of quanta each having identical energy content that arrive during one fixed predefined unit of time. This is in contrast to the currently accepted theory that the energy of individual quanta is a variable function which is dependent on ‘frequency’. The alternate explanation is equally logical, but has a great impact on the explanations currently accepted by scientists pertaining to modern physics.

A parallel line of logic can be applied to the scientific concept of E=MC^2, which is actually E=MV^2 when the velocity has reached that value (‘C’) which Einstein believed to be the maximum possible value. In this parallel line of logic, the factor M would be representative of the number of identical component parts (particles of ‘mass’) that arrive at a fixed counter during one pre-defined unit of time lapse, based on an assumption that the ‘velocity’ of all parts is equal to ‘C’.

This line of logic leads to a reconciliation between current confusion between particle and wave theory, and also give rise to a question if modern concepts of relativity and quantum theory may be confused by a belief that energy is dependent on variations in the characteristics of each individual object or part - when the explanation should actually be based on the rate of arrival of entire families of identical component parts.

### ELECTRIC, ATOMIC, AND NUCLEAR FORCE FIELDS

The currently accepted concepts for force field in space, like the concept of gravity, are all based on an assumption that force is the result of unique characteristics associated with independent separate particles which act through an independent environment (environment may or may not be defined as an ‘empty’ vacuum) with the result that an omni-directional field of force exists within that environment.

When this concept is modified to treat the individual particles as parts of a singular system in motion, then the resultant force fields can be attributed to the effects of the relative motion within the system - just as has already been discussed for the concept of gravity. The variations attributed to ‘strong’, ‘weak’, and ‘electric’ fields may be found to be universally attributable to the magnitude of the rate of relative motion in patterns which duplicate the same interactions as discussed for gravity. The strength of the force field associated with all categories will vary in direct proportion to the magnitude of the relative rate of motion. And the magnitudes of the relative units of distance and time lapse will also be directly proportional to that rate of motion.

As a result, as the perceivable magnitude of the rate of motion increases, the number of the units of relative distance and time lapse will decrease even though the ‘perceived’ size may be less when measured in terms of the current concept of fixed predefined units of measure. In other words, the difference in the size of a molecule involving orbiting electrons would not appear, nor would it have characteristics any different in the eyes of God, than the size and characteristics of a solar system involving orbital planets. The differences in size and characteristics is not due to differences in nature - but only in the perception of mankind who has been trained to place supreme importance on man’s own concept of arbitrary, fixed, predefined units of measure that are independent of variations in relative rates of motion.

It is not within the scope of this document (or this author’s patience) to demonstrate this postulate. But sufficient background has been provided at this point to enable others to carry the almost obvious postulate forward. I believe that as a result, the modern confusion involving complex concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, zero point energy, and time travel can be quickly and easily resolved. The problems do not resolve to mysteries of nature - but simply to a return to logic rather than a reliance and belief in the superiority of imaginary mathematical equations.

Background development and discussions involving the concept of relative units of measure by this author is available at a linked web site:
BACKGROUND

This page was last updated 4 March 2002 by Floyd Creasey
Your comments, pro or con, are more than welcome.