Make your own free website on


Complex scientific concepts are not due to realities involving nature, but rather due to false assumptions involving the imaginary mathematical equations and definitions that man has created during his attempts to explain the simplicity of nature.

Many false assumptions can be easily recognized, and many of the complex equations and definitions can be easily proven to based on the false assumptions.

However, the design of the scholastic system promulgates these false assumptions. This is the result of demanding that vulnerable young students accept and memorize the most basic false assumptions in order to receive passing grades. After having memorized and accepted the false basis, it is the nature of the maturing student to refuse to reconsider the possibility that the initial assumptions may contain fatal errors.

As it attempts to explain nature in terms of the false base, the scientific community continues to build ever more complexity into it's original concepts.

This document discusses how the complexity can be greatly simplified by simply reconsidering the assumptions and false conclusions on which current theoretical science is based.


                CHANGE VERSUS TIME


There is a subtle, but very important, difference between the concepts named 'motion' (an on-going form of change) and 'movement' (a sequential geometrical re-location).   Current scientific theories fail to acknowledge that the reality of instantaneous motion may vary greatly from the imaginary mathematically averaged equation named 'velocity'.   This is apparent when we consider that the motion of a bird's flight through the air does not cease simply because man may consider that the instantaneous time-lapse and corresponding travel distance have been reduced to zero.

The equation named 'velocity' is based on an unjustified assumption that the magnitude and direction of instantaneous motion remains unchanged throughout the duration of time and distance of travel that corresponds to one complete 'unit of measure' for time-lapse. However, the actual instantaneous rate and direction of motion during that time-lapse may vary greatly. This is obvious when we consider the variation between the averaged velocity and instantaneous rates of motion for an automobile trip through town.

Instantaneous motion is a basic state of independent 'dimensional' form of reality. The magnitude of motion, like other dimensional factors, can only be determined through use of ratios of relativity involving two or more identical type relationships.   For example, 'five miles' is simply a ratio of (5/1.0) times 1.0 pre-defined magnitude named 'mile'. The number associated with any magnitude is totally dependent on the existence of a pre-defined and named 'unit' of comparison. We tend to forget that all numbers are actually ratios because the denominator of the ratio has a value of 1.0, and therefore has no numerical effect on the mathematical result of the comparison ratio.   It is therefore necessary to tag on a verbal suffix to the numerical result of the ratio ( a pure number) in order to communicate the intended thought.

The numerical value of the equation for 'velocity' is also based on an unjustified assumption that the magnitude of the unit of measure for distance should be defined as being unaffected by variations in actual rate of motion. That assumption is in direct opposition to the currently accepted concept of 'relativity' which advises that actual distances vary with variations in rate of motion. But because that variation is not currently applied to the magnitude of the unit of measure itself, the actual change in rate of motion must be reflected through a change in the number of fixed predefined units of measure for distance.    back to index


The mathematical equation named 'acceleration' is also based on an unjustified assumption that throughout one complete unit of measure for time lapse, either the rate of change in motion (linear acceleration) or direction (non-linear acceleration) remains constant. And yet the equation named acceleration includes , and is defined by, values of 'velocity' which assume that no change in rate and direction occurs during that same duration of time-lapse.

It is impossible for both assumptions to be correct.

The value of the equation named 'acceleration' is also only an averaged value which may differ from actual instantaneous changes in rate and direction of motion that may occur during the duration of one pre-defined unit of time-lapse.

The potential errors due to unjustified and conflicting assumptions included in the equations named 'velocity' and 'acceleration' are then carried forward into the imaginary mathematical concepts named 'unbalanced force' and 'mass inertia' that form the basis for Newton's first law of motion ( F = MA ). These concepts contain additional unjustified assumptions leading to impossible physical science concepts that have not only been accepted, but also form the basis for every subsequent scientific theory.

Unfortunately, those errors are so thoroughly imbedded into the minds of gullible students that later, when the students become academic 'experts', the possibility of error is simply waved aside as a form of nonsense. It is the nature of most experts to expand on prior belief rather than consider the possibility of prior error.    back to index


Newton advised that 'for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction'. Unfortunately, he apparently failed to recognize that the concept of an 'unbalanced ' force associated with a change in rate of motion was not really 'unbalanced' because every unbalanced force is neutralized by an equal but opposite force that he misnamed 'mass inertia' when he created the imaginary equation F = MA. The MA portion of that equation is simply the difference between the total magnitude of the applied force and all the other named forms of resistance force such as friction, viscosity, drag, and structural rigidity.

However the self balancing applied and resisting forces do result in a 'stress' at the location where the forces meet. And that stress results in some form of change that is always directly proportional to the magnitude of the stress. The change may occur in many different fashions, such as a change in external motion, a change in temperature and/or pressure, material deformation or fracture. Many different names have been created to explain these various forms of change, such as tensile and compression strength, fluid friction, sliding friction, change in state (solid to liquid to gas), aerodynamic drag, or even a 'nervous breakdown'. But by any name, the magnitude of a change is always directly proportional to stress.

When Galileo first demonstrated that the rate in change of motion of falling objects was independent of the weight of the objects, he had, perhaps unknowingly, also proven that the magnitude of the applied force (in this case, the component of weight acting in the direction of change in motion) was exactly counterbalanced by an equal but opposite resisting force. As the force increased (ie, the weight of the objects), the increase was therefore neutralized by the equal increase in resistance force. As the magnitude of the forces was increased (the slope of the ramp was increased) an equal change in resistance force and rate of motion occurred to all of the 'falling' objects. That change in rate of motion was due to a change in the 'stress' resulting from the equal but opposite forces.

   back to index


Newton accepted the false concept (of Copernicus and Kepler) that the motion of planets could be based on a geometrical coordinate system wherein the Sun remains stationary at the coordinate center. However he also advised that celestial bodies involved in orbital motion both rotate with equal angular velocity on opposite sides of a common center of rotation (now referred to as a 'barycenter').

The concept of the Sun being stationary is false concept that ignores the affect of associated motions of the complete orbital system. Current science associates the ocean tides with the combined motion of Moon and Earth around a common barycenter. Based on mutual motion around a barycenter the ratio of the radii from the common barycenter is also the inverse ratio of the imaginary concept Newton referred to as 'mass'. Because both bodies rotate at equal angular velocity, the ratio of the velocity is identical in value to the ratio of the radii.

Based on the common motion around a barycenter, the centrifugal force postulated by Newton (F = MV^2/R) associated with either body (Sun or Earth) is equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction to the centrifugal force associated with the other body. There is therefore no 'unbalanced force', and the concept of 'mass attraction' need never have been postulated. The two body system follows the same behavior concept as a single balanced flywheel spinning on an axle.

In effect, 'empty space' carries the force that holds the two celestial bodies together, and 'empty space' therefore has the same capacity to connect the two bodies just as we recognize the 'massive' material of a flywheel is capable of holding the spinning flywheel together. A barycenter is the location of a 'center of gravity' of a single object which is comprised of the Sun and Planets, just as an 'atom' is comprised of a 'nucleus and electrons'.   The vocabulary created by man to explain 'massive' stellar systems and 'electrical' atomic structure differs, but the natural reality is identical.   In both cases separate 'objects' in mutual motion are interconnected by 'empty space', thereby forming a single system which becomes another single object for which a different name is applied.

It is interesting that some might even desire to refer to the 'barycenter' location as a 'black hole' in space which seems to resemble a 'massive' location having a mass equal to that of the sum of the component parts included in the orbital system.    back to index


As indicated previously, the mathematical equation named 'acceleration' is based on false assumptions that instantaneous motion is equal in value to the averaged mathematical equation named 'velocity', and conflicting assumptions that a constant magnitude of change greater than zero is occurring simultaneously with a complete lack of change.

It can also be shown that when motion is treated as a basic instantaneous reality that is independent of the averaged value for the equation named 'velocity', then the direction of motion (linear or non-linear) is insignificant because the magnitude of the change in location can only be zero during zero change in historic time.

With that realization, it becomes possible to show that the magnitude of the values for both linear and non-linear 'acceleration' is identical. This is accomplished by simply setting the value of the change in linear 'velocity' to the value of both the radius and tangential 'velocity' of the imaginary arc on which the value of 'centrifugal' acceleration is based.

The process is reversible, if we begin with the value of a non-linear acceleration and wish to determine an imaginary geometry for linear acceleration of identical magnitude.

Note that if we attribute a change in motion (either linear or non-linear change) to an applied force, then the concept science refers to as 'centripetal force' provides the same neutralizing resistance force for non-linear motion as science refers to as 'mass inertia' for linear motion. In either case, the resistance force is exactly equal but opposite to the 'applied' force. In both cases, the net force is always zero, but a 'stress' exists.    back to index


The sequence of numbers involving any real or imagined form of reality are all based on some pre-defined magnitude symbolized by the number 'one'.   In effect, every other number in the sequence is a simple ratio of some other magnitude and the number one. All true numbers are therefore derived from a simply ratio having a denominator of 1.0. As such the values assigned to numbers are all relative to the number one, and when the values of those relative values are then compared to one another by mathematically simplified ratio, the lesser number (the denominator of the simplified ratio) then forms the relative unit of measure on which the greater value (the numerator of the simplified ratio) is significant. For example 10 apples actually signifies a ratio of l0/1 of that which has been defined as an apple, while 5 apples actually signifies a ratio of 5/1 of that which has been defined as an apple.   But when we compare the 10 to 5 values by ratio, and then mathematically reduce that resultant ratio of 10/5 to simply 2, we have essentially set the value of 5 as the unit of measure on which the value of 10 is based.

The symbol named zero is an indication that the concept to which the zero has been applied is simply non-existent. As such it can not be compared by ratio to any other number which is associated with something which actually does exist. This is the reason why a ratio having a denominator of zero is 'illegal' within the rules of mathematics. Similarly, the symbol named 'infinity' should not be considered to be a member of the numeric system - 'infinity' simply does not exist in reality, and can only be mathematically achieved by a ratio having the non-real value of zero as it's denominator.

Man may create a definition for any object or imaginary concept. But, by that definition itself, it incorporates an association with the symbol of one. Based on that definition, other quantities of the same pre-defined object or imaginary concepts may subsequently be assigned a number through use of a simple ratio.

However, the application of the symbol 'zero' automatically denies any existence of a pre-defined object or imaginary concept within the application of current interest. And if the object or concept is non-existent (indicated by zero) it is illogical to compare it by ratio to the existence to a something that does exist (as indicated by any number greater than zero). For example, it is illogical to attempt to compare two different 'people' if one of them simply does not exist.    back to index


Particle motion is explained terms of a 'massive' object, having a variable 'velocity' based on constant units of distance and time-lapse. Wave motion is explained in terms of zero mass moving at a constant 'velocity' with significant distances based on variable units of measure for distance named 'wave length', and variable units of time-lapse named 'frequency'.

The word 'frequency' is simply the number of 'wave lengths' required to extend through a distance that has been pre-determined from the magnitude of distance associated with the pre-defined value of 'velocity' of the wave. When that same word (frequency) is used to count the number of rail cars passing an observer during one pre-defined fixed unit of time lapse, then the average length of the cars might be referred to as a 'wave length', while the distance of travel of the entire train of rail cars is equal to the 'velocity' of the train. Two different descriptions of identical realities.

When motion involves a massive particle, science considers that all of the parts of 'mass' included in the particle arrive simultaneously. But the resultant values of energy associated with the arrival of the massive object are expressed in terms of 'mass' (and 'energy') per full unit of measure of time lapse.   In contrast, all the parts which make up a 'wave' are considered to arrive sequentially rather than simultaneously.   As a result, the energy associated with the arrival of a wave is considered to be proportional to the number of waves that arrive per full unit of measure for time lapse (ie, the 'frequency').

Here again, the difference between particle and wave motion is not due to the characteristics of nature, but rather to the use of different words and mathematical assumptions created by man during his attempts to explain the same natural phenomena.   It might be helpful in understanding this if we think of the mass of the particle being stretched out evenly along the length of a line equal to the distance of travel per unit of time.

This is, in fact, the relationship already accepted by current science during the equation used to define the rate of motion of a wave as it moves along the length of a 'massive' string that has been placed under tension. The same equation (V^2 = F / (M/L) is also applied to determine the speed of sound but the force factor in this case is stated as pressure and the mass factor is stated as density (both simply dividing both numerator and denominator by the square of 1 unit of area). The same factor is applied to electrical waves, but again the vocabulary has been changed for the terms in this ratio.

It may not yet be recognized by current science, but there is good reason to believe that the actual rate of motion of those component 'frequencies' included within a single wave (such as the colors that make up white light) varies in proportion to the wave length. Test results leading to this conclusion include the change in sound of thunder associated with both atmospheric and extra-atmospheric lightning, the increased spread (this is not simply a 'red shift') between the spectrum lines that increases with increased rate of motion, and the change in rate of motion of wave along a stretched string for various harmonic frequencies.    back to index


After having recognized that our current scientific theories are based on mythical assumptions and imaginary mathematical equations - rather than on natural realities, we must find an alternative way to explain that natural reality.   The observations on which current theories were based, albeit inadequately explained, light the way for a new alternate path toward understanding.


The concept of change is real, but association of those changes with the concept named time is one of man's imaginary creations. The entire concept of time is meaningless until it is associated with some form of change. In order to organize his thoughts and communication about the sequence of perceived changes, man created the concept of historic time. Historic time serves somewhat like the page numbers within a book. It adds nothing to the process of interest, but does help organize thoughts about the sequence of that process.


The only true significance of a 'time-lapse' is that when we wish to compare different values of averaged rates of change, then the changes of interest must be compared during equal magnitudes of time-lapse. Differences are compared through use of ratios wherein each change of interest is first expressed in terms of one arbitrarily pre-defined unit of measure for time-lapse. When those two values are then arranged in a ratio, that same value of 1.0 for time lapse can be cancelled out of the ratio because it appears in both the numerator and denominator of the ratio. As a result the actual magnitude of the unit of measure for time lapse is mathematically insignificant to the comparison of change actually of current interest

This cancellation of the magnitude of the unit of measure for the dimensions of distance and force also occurs when we compare different magnitudes of distance or force. In the case of a comparison of two values of 'velocity', the units of measure for both distance and time lapse cancel out with the result that a comparison of 60 mph and 30 mph results in a simple conclusion that the average rate of motion of one object is equal to 2 times the average rate of motion of the other object. All of the values for 'units of measure' have mathematically disappeared from the conclusion. The practice of verbally taking those units of measure forward along with the mathematical value of simply 2.0 is only for purposes of communication.


The entire scientific concept is based on comparative ratios and can be tremendously simplified by simply assigning a mathematical value of 1.0 to the lesser magnitude of current interest. This magnitude might then be referred to as a 'relative' unit of measure. The greater value of comparison would then be expressed in terms of that 'relative' unit of measure. The mathematical result would then be completely independent of the entire concept of arbitrarily pre-defined fixed units of measure.


Motion involves two sequential locations of the same two objects (or imaginary points). Based on the current concept of defining the distance between those two locations, the value assigned to the distance between those points varies in direct proportion to the rate of motion. If we simply reverse our thought such that we define the 'relative unit of measure' as being directly proportional to the rate of motion of current interest, then the value of the imaginary mathematical equation named 'velocity' becomes a constant that is independent of the actual rate of motion of current interest. In effect, our concept of a solid inflexible ruler changes to a concept of an elastic ruler that stretches in direct proportion to the rate of motion of current interest.

Because the imaginary equation named 'velocity' is now constant, the imaginary equation named 'acceleration' can only have a value of zero (ie, it is non-existent) that is independent of actual changes in rates of motion.   And if the value of 'acceleration' is zero, then Newton's first law of motion (F=MA) must also result in a value of zero (the 'unbalanced' force is non-existent).

But we are aware that an applied force must exist to cause a change to occur, and for every applied force there must be an equal but opposite resistance force. We are also aware that the opposing forces result in a 'stress', and that some form of change occurs in direct proportion to that stress.   Without changing our understanding that the actual rate of motion can vary, and that a change in rate of motion may occur, we have now arrived at a cause and relationship that assigns relative values to these affects, while deleting the mathematical equations named 'velocity', 'acceleration', and 'mass' from the same reality.

We have also eliminated the difference between the current explanations for the concepts of wave and particle motion, as well as a need to subdivide the explanations for different 'size' physical objects.

The concept of a relative unit of measure for distance that is directly proportional to relative rate of motion negates a need for concern about an upper limitation of rates of motion such as that currently referred to as the speed of light. It also provides a reason why the expansion of the electromagnetic spectrum would appear to expand (ie, the 'red shift') when the associated spectrum was measured using non-relative units to measure the wave lengths in the spectrum. And with that recognition, the mathematical significance of an 'expanding' universe may simply cease to exist, for in mathematical values of distance and 'velocity' the expansion ceases to exist.

Amazing results also occur when the relative unit of measure for distance is applied to our geometrical concept of elliptical orbits. The ellipses become circles because the variation in radius of the orbit is translated into a constant as a result of the variations in rates of motion between apogee and perigee. The difference may continue to exist, but it is not translated into the mathematical equation as currently defined. And if it is not translated into the equation of an ellipse, then once again the myth associated with mass attraction is dispelled. From that, the significance of 'weight' can be correlated with our concept of variations in 'density' rather than gravity.    back to index


During the development of current science, man placed great emphasis on absolute numbers of pre-defined units of measure rather than the more significant concept of comparative magnitudes of identical concepts.

In so doing, the more significant concept of relativity was lost. That in turn led to creation of sub-divisions within theoretical science that were based on the differences in the numbers related to size. Entirely different vocabularies and assumptions were made within each sub-division of theory.

There is obviously great difference in size between a solar system and a single atom. Man considers that difference to be so important that he ignores the obvious similarity that also exists in the general pattern of organization and behavior of the two. Two completely different vocabularies and explanations have been created to explain the same general patterns and behavior. One must wonder if through the eyes of an all inclusive God if those differences are necessary. Perhaps we should also wonder if a small mud puddle appears different from an ocean as seen through the eyes of an ameba.

Perhaps we should also recognize that the 'empty space' that we perceive to be between physical objects is just as significant as the materials of which the objects are composed. As previously discussed, the concept that science refers to as 'mass' is actually only a neutralizing force that exists in direct proportion to an 'unbalanced' applied force. It was also pointed out that the ratio of interacting 'masses' was simply the inverse ratio of the radii from a common location in 'empty' space that has been given the name of a 'barycenter'.

Perhaps we should begin to recognize that that 'empty space' between objects is every bit as significant as the material from which physical objects are composed. Perhaps we should even begin to realize that isolated objects do not exist within a field of empty space - but are actually only component parts of a greater singular object composed of both that which we associate with the imaginary concept named 'mass', and the real concept named 'empty space'.

We have entered a realm of thought which combines the hard science of physical science that accepts a concept of lines of force through empty space, and the metaphysical thoughts involving thought itself through empty space. We are moving backward into a realms previously referred to a 'ether' and 'metaphysics', and forward into a developing realm referred to as 'quantum space', and 'universal consciousness'.

The only thing that is necessary to accomplish all this is to simply accept that the concept of a relative unit of measure for distance should replace the current concept of irrelevant units of measure for distance. And the need to make that change becomes evident when the currently accepted scientific falacies are recognized, and the techniques used to explain our reality are reconsidered.    back to index