The Relativity Of Motion In Space Relative To The Inertia Phenomena

[NovaJoe]

The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is a subject that no one can seem to agree upon. It seems no one can make up there mind either. But, if we all we to take a deep breath, and approach this difficulty by thinking "outside the box," we would find there is a easy way to go about this difficulty. Let’s go back to the basics and see what we can come up with. Assuming motion cannot exist without reference, the first thing that needs to be done is we need to define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. Let us simplify this statement by saying, "We need to define motion in space relative to space" (spatial reference) If we imagine the universe in a perpetual orbit, from the perspective of watching the universe from outside the universe, how are we to know if the universe is spinning in perpetual orbit, or are we orbiting the universe while the universe stands still? There is no motion to define here relative to a orbital motion without a third body of reference. The only motion that can be defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the universe. Now were beginning to get the picture. How are we to modify a postulate for the functionality of the inertia phenomena by using this

deduction? Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, thus, gravitational mass is relative to motion in space as well.

 

These assumptions clearly dictate a need for, as we refer to in Relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory or RHU Theory for short, a positive uniformed motion or PUM for short, of universal spatial expansion of all matter throughout the universe with the perceived velocity of light. If this were the case, then we could explain the curvature of space in the presence of mass proprietary to the warping of space relative to velocity approaching the speed of light. According to the warping of space relative to velocity approaching the speed of light, the space in front of the direction of motion expands, while the space opposite to the direction of motion experiences a contraction creating a resistance opposite to the direction of motion we have come to call inertia. Now if matter did expand uniformly with the perceived velocity of light it is possible that the PUM (positive uniformed motion) could create an expansion of space equivocally proportionate to the universal spatial expansion (PUM) of all matter which would leave no reference body for this motion to be observed. The PUM (positive uniformed motion) would cause a curvature of space in the presents of mass, thus, the PUM would explain the functionality of the curvature of space in the presence of matter. This would also explain why the normally symmetrical shape of the atom experiences a contraction relative to direction when put into motion approaching the perceived velocity of light. Not only that but this postulation explains why gravity is a universal medium. Under this postulation of a PUM (positive uniformed motion) when two or more atoms are clustered together the combined velocity of the atoms expansion motion is obviously greater the more atoms clustered together in any particular body increasing the curvature of space in the immediate vicinity of the body relative to the accumulated velocity of expansion. The accumulated velocity of expansion relative to the number of atoms in a body would also increase the downward force experienced by say a person on the surface of the earth in the form of inertia relative to the accumulated velocity of expansion proprietary to the number of atoms clustered together in a particular body. Go to http://www.relativetheorys.com for more info on relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory (RHU)

 

 

Yes it is true motion in space can only be defined relative to other bodies in space, but how is motion in space referenced relative to the inertia phenomena? This is what is meant when I say we need to define motion in space relative to space (the universe as a hole). There must be a reference body for the inertia phenomena or the inertia phenomena would not exist because motion does not exist without reference.

[insane_alien]

relativistic hyper unification theory? orbiting universes? nah mate. not going to fool us.

 

i think you're just spamming for that site.

[swansont]

The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is a subject that no one can seem to agree upon.

 

I think we can agree that this is just word salad.

[Reaper]

This sounds like a bunch of gobblygook to me. Did anyone actually understand a single thing he just said?

[NovaJoe]

If you cant follow these simple deductions you shouldnt respond it makes you sound misinformed, maybe you should find a simpler forum.

 

I think we can agree that this is just word salad.

 

Vegitarian? maybe you should think about eating some meat, its brain food.

[Mr Skeptic]

Haha, its too "deep" for me. Deep in what, I cannot say

[NovaJoe]

relativistic hyper unification theory? orbiting universes? nah mate. not going to fool us.

 

i think you're just spamming for that site.

 

This was a hypothetical scenario:doh: Ever heard of hypothetical? Look in the big book that says Web-sters (without the hyphenation) and you will find a definition for hypothetical. Definitions are in alphabetical order. Why would I be trying to fool anyone? I think you dont have a clue, do me a favor and go and find one.

[uncool]

I have to agree with the other guys; what you wrote is word salad. Can you please try to simplify what you are saying so that we can understand it?

 

What "inertia phenomena" are you talking about?

=Uncool-

[Sisyphus]

Textbook crank in every way.

[Spyman]

Why would I be trying to fool anyone?

A lot of people come here and tries that, why would you be different ?

[Reaper]

I'm still trying to determine if this says anything at all. But so far from what I can take, all of the terms and phrases don't seem to have any meaning.

[Klaynos]

I'm still trying to determine if this says anything at all.

 

Nope.

[insane_alien]

Nope.

 

in other words, i was right at the first.

[Reaper]

in other words, i was right at the first.

 

Oh I knew that, I was just being a prick .

 

However, some of the less educated might actually take this seriously, so by adding some comments of my own we make it clear that this is devoid of content.

[Klaynos]

Oh I knew that, I was just being a prick .

 

However, some of the less educated might actually take this seriously, so by adding some comments of my own we make it clear that this is devoid of content.

 

I'd be impressed if they understood enough of it to comment...

[losfomot]

I'd be impressed if they understood enough of it to comment...

 

In an effort to impress Klaynos....

 

 

I thought, at first, that 'inertia phenomenon' referred simply to INERTIA... but now I think he just uses 'inertia phenomenon' to describe the expansion of space.

 

I think he is looking for something that could be used as a universal reference frame (like the cmbr maybe?)

 

And, I can't make out the details but, I think he's giving us his theory of gravity based on motion relative to this universal reference frame.

 

NOVAJOE - I have to agree it is very hard to understand, as you seem determined to use unnecessarily big words to try get your idea across, and it just doesn't help. Try to cut down on the fancy sentences ( ie: How are we to modify a postulate for the functionality of the inertia phenomena could just have easily said: How can we explain the expansion of space... and if I'm not translating correctly, you still get the idea.)

[lakmilis]

Well, this private site by this tosser who can't even spell theories and gives 'special previews' by "us" and enjoys photoshop and is trying to use words he can't even grasp is simply hilarious....Now I finally understand the reservations and hopefully remaining rigidity to ban people with stupid 'theories' if claimed to be so.... Although I am still very adamant about as long as postulates, axiom proposals, hypothesis' and ideas etc are used, then it should be valid as long as it is not an absolute obvious persistent idiotacy to a poster....

 

I also regret this misunderstanding of claiming philosophy does not belong here, as science is a subset of the former. Anyway, this bloke is quite lost in a topic of which he's day dreaming about.

 

...special offer.... the author is preparing his first publication ....OMG

 

i just have to add some more online jargon, pardon my French.... FOAD...in fact, I'll pardon that novajoe joseph bloke IFF (no, not a typy but an abbrv. for if and only if) he is French in fact.

[Fred56]

Hang on, I just finished running his post through a bi-directional cut/paste filter (after renormalising some of the infinities) and some interesting terms have emerged:

 

Relativistic-Hype-Unification Theory or RHU Theory for unifod motion or PUM for short, of universal spatial expansion of all mahout the unise with the perelocity of light. If this case, then we could exrvature of space in thresence of mass to the warping of spacelocity approaching the speed of light. According ping of spachile the space opsite to the directione to the directio motion we to call inertia. Now if matter did expand unifor the perceived velocity of light it that tositive uniformed motion) could create an expansion of space proportion to the univxpansion (ion) would cause a curvature of space , thus, the PUM would explain the functionality of the curvature mulated velocity of expansion.

 

Yes it is true motion in space can only be defined relative to other bodies in space, but ho for the phenomena or the phenomena would not exist does not exist without reference.”

 

Can you see it?

[swansont]

Moved to speculations

[Reaper]

Speculations, why? It doesn't really say anything. It looks to me that this guy just took a bunch of big words and tried to pretend he was smart

[timo]

The words get smaller after renormalizing, but I don't think they unify.

[JohnB]

I don't see the problem. The OP was clear and concise and I understood it perfectly.

 

Nurse, it's time for my pills now.

[insane_alien]

I don't see the problem. The OP was clear and concise and I understood it perfectly.

 

Nurse, it's time for my pills now.

 

you're beyond the help of drugs if you can undertand that and have it make sense.

[Reaper]

alright, I think I have successfully renormalized it:

 

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 

or

 

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam.........

 

 

All the big terms and irrelevant sentences were canceled out, and all meaningless terms were accounted for. Though I am sure that something did get lost in translation, this is a pretty accurate one, and what ever was lost is unlikely to have made a difference.

 

 

======================================

 

Well, actually, you know what, I think its just easier to call him a stupid spammer.

[ydoaPs]

The relativity of motion in space relative to the inertia phenomena is a subject that no one can seem to agree upon.

Translation: "No one seems to be able to agree on motion relative to inertia."

 

I thought Newton settled that with good old F=ma.

 

It seems no one can make up there mind either. But, if we all we to take a deep breath, and approach this difficulty by thinking "outside the box," we would find there is a easy way to go about this difficulty.

Translation: "I'm smarter than you"

 

Let’s go back to the basics and see what we can come up with. Assuming motion cannot exist without reference, the first thing that needs to be done is we need to define motion relative to the inertia phenomena. Let us simplify this statement by saying, "We need to define motion in space relative to space" (spatial reference)If we imagine the universe in a perpetual orbit, from the perspective of watching the universe from outside the universe, how are we to know if the universe is spinning in perpetual orbit, or are we orbiting the universe while the universe stands still? There is no motion to define here relative to a orbital motion without a third body of reference. The only motion that can be defined under these conditions is the motion of the expansion of the universe. Now were beginning to get the picture.

Translation: "Without defining a reference, it's like asking, 'What the difference between a duck?'"

 

How are we to modify a postulate for the functionality of the inertia phenomena by using this

deduction? Let us assume that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent. Inertial mass is relative to velocity in space, thus, gravitational mass is relative to motion in space as well.

This seems somewhat straightforward, but I'm not sure if we can make that assumption.

 

These assumptions clearly dictate a need for, as we refer to in Relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory or RHU Theory for short, a positive uniformed motion or PUM for short, of universal spatial expansion of all matter throughout the universe with the perceived velocity of light.

Translation: "I'm so incredibly smart, I can can take my assumption and then(with NO work) draw the conclusion that all matter is expanding at the speed of light"

 

So, It isn't all that clear. In fact, I'm 99.999997% sure that it's a non-sequiter.

 

If this were the case, then we could explain the curvature of space in the presence of mass proprietary to the warping of space relative to velocity approaching the speed of light. According to the warping of space relative to velocity approaching the speed of light, the space in front of the direction of motion expands, while the space opposite to the direction of motion experiences a contraction creating a resistance opposite to the direction of motion we have come to call inertia.

Translation: "I figured out how Warp Drive works. I must be the smartest person alive!"

 

 

Now if matter did expand uniformly with the perceived velocity of light it is possible that the PUM (positive uniformed motion) could create an expansion of space equivocally proportionate to the universal spatial expansion (PUM) of all matter which would leave no reference body for this motion to be observed.

Translation: "If all matter is expanding uniformly, then (quite luckily for me) it would be completely untestable as space would expand too."

 

If matter was expanding, and the spacial expansion compensated to leave no trace of the motion, what about the gravitational field? The mass is getting spread out, so shouldn't gravity get weaker?

 

[math]F=G\frac{Mm}{r^2}[/math]

 

The PUM (positive uniformed motion) would cause a curvature of space in the presents of mass, thus, the PUM would explain the functionality of the curvature of space in the presence of matter.

Translation: "The movement of the matter is what causes gravity."

 

 

 

This would also explain why the normally symmetrical shape of the atom experiences a contraction relative to direction when put into motion approaching the perceived velocity of light.

Translation: "And this predicts length contraction."

 

Again, it isn't that clear. Perhaps you should show some work. Also, I'm pretty sure length contraction is explained completely differently by one of the best tested theories in the history of science.

 

 

Not only that but this postulation explains why gravity is a universal medium. Under this postulation of a PUM (positive uniformed motion) when two or more atoms are clustered together the combined velocity of the atoms expansion motion is obviously greater the more atoms clustered together in any particular body increasing the curvature of space in the immediate vicinity of the body relative to the accumulated velocity of expansion. The accumulated velocity of expansion relative to the number of atoms in a body would also increase the downward force experienced by say a person on the surface of the earth in the form of inertia relative to the accumulated velocity of expansion proprietary to the number of atoms clustered together in a particular body.

Translation: "The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational force."

 

 

Go to http://www.relativetheorys.com for more info on relativistic-Hyper-Unification Theory (RHU)

Translation: "Here's my pseudoscience webpage!"

 

 

Yes it is true motion in space can only be defined relative to other bodies in space, but how is motion in space referenced relative to the inertia phenomena? This is what is meant when I say we need to define motion in space relative to space (the universe as a hole). There must be a reference body for the inertia phenomena or the inertia phenomena would not exist because motion does not exist without reference.

Translation: "Motion would be meaningless in a universe consisting of a single particle, so I must be right!"