wdavidb wrote:Linearized dimensions represent a static condition of space, time and motion, yet the universe is not static nor can it be accurately described or quantified in static terms of reference, such as yards, feet, meters, grams, seconds and so on.

David... I believe you attempting to define (or re-define) Euclidean Geometry verses non-Euclidean geometry as it applies to "field tensors"! I believe all of this is covered in Einstein's special relativity and the time Continuity theorem!

If we cannot use any static terms whatsover, there is no foundation at all and the only foundation left -is the definition of time INTERVAL!

This boils down to Minkowski's invariance of the INTERVAL theorem.

See page 37 of this book: SPACETIME PHYSICS by Taylor/Wheeler ISBN 0-7167-0336-x

Here is a scan of the page:

The foundation for this is laid down in the first 36 pages of this book. IT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE and USES ONLY COMMON ARITHMETIC TO DEFINE "dimensions"... ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND PLAINLY WHAT IS DEFINED AS THE FOUNDATION OF SPACE METRICS and TIME.

The only major point of contention is the Minkowski w quantity which is define as an "imaginary number".

This is where the "Time continuity theorem" begins it's rather complex arguments which are yet to be resolved.

wdavidb wrote:This is equally true of gravity, as gravity is considered to have a linear relationship with mass and acceleration etc.

Actually David, Acceleration cannot possibly be part of any linear relationship because by itself "Acceleration" is "a variable" of "a variable" (motion itself being a displacement of some kind). Acceleration is the "rate of change" of "the speed" of a moving object, and not just the speed of the object itself.

Do you see how confusing your descriptions can be to someone else trying to learn standard definitions described by comon sense?

I understand that a lot of what you are saying about "field" can make a lot of sense ( specially if you throw out Newtonian concepts of FORCE) I am willing to try and rethink everything about field definitions and I am even willing to look closely at your whole theorem, but we HAVE to start with some sort of foundation for TIME, then DISTANCE, then MASS. If you want to use the PROTON as a natural reference for MASS, and perhaps "Planck's constance" for distance, we can define at least the first TWO engineering units we need to define the rest of the "Engineering" units. The only one left is "time".... and that is the sticky one. We all have to share the same imaginary based unit for time.

Otherwise, nothing fits together to create anything useable ( I mean TV, Radio, Computers, cars, etc,)

Gravity is simply a reflection of the field condition in which a given mass is located, whereby the mass will follow the path of least resistance to a further increase in acceleration, which is commonly referred to as free fall.

For a long time I thought that your point of view was just goble-de-gook and made no sense.... Now I'm begining to see what you are describing. You are saying that "FIELD" conditions are dynamic (possibly) and that the metric tensor between two masses is actually "a changing value" which is either "increasing" or "decreasing" depending upon the observer's reference point (reference mass).

If you could see how the Gravitator design is described by Brown and Kitselman, this point of view starts to make perfect sense, and it completely blows away the basic Newtonian F=M.A foundation, -which has been disputed by others recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Does anyone else here understand what I'm saying about a "foundation" for understanding basic notions such as Time, Distance, and MASS????

Trickfox