INTRODUCTION

APRIL 2003: This is the latest version of a series of presentations which describe how the currently accepted concepts involving basic theoretical physical science contain several primary false assumptions dating back to the time of Kepler and Newton, and compounded by modern concepts of relativity as postulated by Einstein and Planck when the original errors could no longer be supported.   The document includes 3 sequential 'pages' covering historic milestones and misinterpretation in currently accepted science; synopsis of a new concept of relativity; and explanation of terms used and significance of the new concept.

Take this link to GO directly to that version.

APRIL 2001: This version is presented in the form of a dialog between an (imaginary) distinguished science professor and an intelligent, open minded - but uneducated - student. This dialog format was selected to combine discussion of alternate concepts with dogmatic text book like science. This presentation uses very few illustrations (only in the appendix) and assumes that the reader has a solid prior understanding of elementary physical science. † The entire dialog is included in a single page (100KB) to facilitate reader copying and subsequent off-line consideration.

Take this link to GO directly to that version.

APRIL 2000: This version was a third attempt to correct, clarify, and improve on prior presentations. Illistrations and discussion is slanted toward readers having only a limited background in currenty accepted physical science. Emphasis was placed on a discussion of the great simplification possible through recognition of a modified concept of relativity.

Take this link to GO directly to that version.

DECEMBER 1998: The second version of this presentation concentrates on errors that were initially introduced into the basic elements of theoretical physical science. The problems associated with the mixture of imaginary mathematical techniques and the reality of our physical universe during the Kepler - Newton era are discussed.

Take this link to GO directly to that version.

APRIL 1997: The first version represented a somewhat pre-mature presentation of the general concepts which have been better developed in the subsequent attempts. However, the first version does contain some useful discussion about how mankind viewed his surrounding world prior to the introduction of mathematics and science, and should be most easily understandable by those with very little prior knowledge in the area of physical science. There is also a separate section ("Stuff") which provides non-technical information developed at a time when the author was first learning the basic concepts of web page presentations. This first presentation follows below:



BACKGROUND

Science appears in two different forms. The first form is that which exists within the "establishment". The second form is that which most members of the establishment refer to as "crack pot" science. While I object to the name applied to the latter group, it should be clarified from the onset that the thought which I hope to convey in this document does not follow the currently recognized thought which the establishment commands.

If you are reading this, then it is probable that you have some question within your own mind about the adequacy of the establishment to provide logical answers to your own questions about the true nature of our universe. You may have found that the web contains many forums and many presentations by others who ponder questions similar to those in your own mind. You may even have developed "your own" concepts about how and what existence is all about.

There is a generalized undercurrent that needs to be clearly stated. "Something is wrong here." But we are not at all sure just what it is that is wrong. In the search for logical answers, two different approaches appear common. Many have resorted to a mathematical approach, wherein the various assumptions utilized during development of the "accepted" mathematics are re-evaluated. Others have suggested that the problem involves a conflict between that which we physically perceive and the reality of nature itself. The first approach leaves many of us out because the mathematics is beyond our personal comprehension. The second approach does not satisfy because it seems illogical or difficult to mentally accept.

There is another approach. One which I have been unable to find expressed elsewhere, and which I want to share with you. But before we delve into the details of the approach itself, lets take a moment to outline what I feel are necessary requirements which must be included within any logical answers.

  • That which man perceives as a physical reality IS a true reality which exists at the moment of that observation. However the observer may not recognize the totality of that which he perceives.

  • Previously reported observations about prior scientific experiments remain valid. However, the currently accepted explanation for that result may be incomplete, or may infer conclusions not validated by the observation.

  • If an alternate explanation is offered to explain the results of currently accepted scientific experiment, then that alternate explanation must also provide a satisfactory reason for the continuance of, or the cancellation of any accepted corollaries which have been developed as a result of the original observation.
  • SPECIAL WORDS

    In this document, the word nature is frequently used. The reader may mentally associate the word with "physical law", "God", "greater mind" or any other preferred nomenclature. Within my own mind, it implies a set of regulations which apply to, and regulate the activity of every part of content within our physical universe.

    The word mass is one of the most diffuse words in science. To the layman, the concept of "mass" and weight are almost indistinguishable - massive objects are those that weigh a lot. To the first year physics student, "mass" is weight divided by a constant factor of 32 here on earth, but then weight is some other value everywhere else, while mass remains a constant. To the advanced physics student, "mass" may be all of the above - but it may also vary depending on velocity, and when the velocity reaches the speed of light (which it can't do) then it is no longer mass, it has become energy. In this document, the word "mass" will refer to the thought of "inertial mass", as initially intended by Newton when he first included it as a component of a classical mathematical equation. In that form, "mass" is simply a natural resistance to any change in the current state of motion of any specific part of existence. (In later pages it will be suggested that the word is superfluous, and probably should be omitted from the dictionary.)

    The word time is another enigma. In our normal day to day activity, when we speak of time we have one of three thoughts in mind. We may be referring to a sequence of prior or future events. We may be referring to the current instant of reality in order to establish a plan about our future activity. Or we may be referring to a specific quantity of change which occurs during an associated quantity of passage of time, such as the thought of a specific change in physical position during an associated specific LAPSE of time. Time is not something unto itself. It is simply a convenient word which is useful to compare to some form of perceived change. Time and change are synonymous. Change of any form mandates an associated change of "time". This is true if the change is only mental, or if it involves some physical change.

    It may be pre-mature, but we need to consider the word velocity at this point, because it is closely associated with the way the word time is often used. As indicated in the prior paragraph, "time" is not a reality unto itself. By the same token, the word "velocity" meaning a change in physical location of an object during an associated lapse of time is not a physical reality, but only a convenient mathematical equation which has come to be mentally accepted as a reality in the same way that the word "time" has been mentally accepted as a reality. Because the equation for velocity involves a lapse of time the word implies either a past or future occurence. But man does not physically perceive either the past or the future - he only remembers or imagines it. If we restrict the thought about velocity to only the current instant of existence, then the word "velocity" is meaningless because time does not "pass", and the word "velocity" is therefore not a reality, but only a mathematical equation relating zero change in position divided by zero change in time. While the word "velocity" and the ratio of distance divided by corresponding lapse of time may be suspect, it can not be denied that, man may perceive an ongoing state of "current change". The nature of that that perceived change will be examined in some detail in subsequent sections of this document.



    Index

    Part 1. Background (See above)
    Part 2." Primary Relativity versus Evolution of Science"
    Part 3." Back to the Basics - Paradox in Thought"
    Part 4." True Essence of Relativity"
    Part 5. " Keplerís Unrecognized Discovery of Relativity"
    Part 6. " Space-time Relationships"
    Part 7. " Familiar Clues and Logical Answers"
    Part 8. " Unrecognized Associations"
    Part 9. " Modern Science"
    Part 10. "Conclusions - A Universal Model"

    Not interested - show me some less technical STUFF

    NEXT "Man's Concepts of Reality"
    BACK TO"Top of page"

    Thanks for stopping by. You are visiter number Counter
    © 1997 Comments welcome floyd@surfsideroc.com
    Floyd Creasey, Beverly Beach, FL