In FIG. #4 below, I have performed a geometric analysis to determine both the equation required to calculate exactly what an objects spatial length will be when in motion through space at a specific speed, and a second equation required to calculate exactly what the perception of the passage of time will be from the objects point of view when moving at a specific spatial speed. 

FIG. # 4

Looking at Fig. #4, you can see that I use the Pythagorean theorem. But that's about it. All we need to understand is addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and the Pythagorean Theorem. 

The Pythagorean Theorem -  The square of the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle, equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the remaining two sides. It's as simple as that.

In Fig. #4, I have created two right angle triangles, using " c ", " v ", and " Lo ", with " c "  being the objects constant motion in Time - Space, " v " being the velocity or motion through space only, and " Lo " being the objects constant length extending across Time-Space.  No matter what direction the " c " vector is pointing, it determines the angles of both " X° " and " Y° ". Both angles will change the same amount, because both triangles are almost identical. The only difference between the two, is the scale or size. This is to our advantage, because this means that despite the difference in size, the ratios between the side lengths of each triangle, are identical. This allows us to perform substitutions in our production of the equations.

Vectors, for those of you not familiar with them, are as follows. The line and arrow head simply represent the direction of motion. The length of the vector arrow represents the speed of motion. Through simple substitution and rearranging of the formulas, the two outcome equations are in the boxes at the bottom of Fig. #4.  

At this point, by examining reality with simplicity and logic in mind, we have the understanding that all particles, or objects, are constantly in motion. All that we are able to do, is change the direction of travel of the objects as they are constantly on the move within Time - Space.

Therefore, if we toss a ball while floating in Space, the ball continues to move across Space at this fixed spatial speed. If we toss the ball at a higher speed, it will continue to move across Space at this higher spatial speed. But in truth, the ball is in a constant state of motion that has not been changed at all, and in these two cases, all we have done is that we used force to change the direction of travel of that constant motion that is constant within the four dimensions of Time-Space. This then provides the explanation and understanding as to the source of ongoing INERTIA.

Understanding that motion in Time-Space is consistent, therefore being a Universal Constant, this can help us understand what is common between CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and CONSTANT ACCELERATION. Both CENTRIFUGAL FORCE and CONSTANT ACCELERATION can be used to simulate the effects of gravitation.

So far, we have learned that all particles are actually always moving at the constant speed, " c ". Therefore Constant Acceleration is almost identical to Centrifugal Force, since it too is actually a constant change in direction of travel while still maintaining that constant " c " motion in the four dimensional TIME-SPACE reality. We, on the other hand, despite this constant motion, see changes in the speed of an objects spatial motion. This is because we can not look across the time dimension, but instead exist only in the present, and so any changes in the direction of travel within Time-Space are seen by us as an increase or decrease of the motion across the spatial dimension only.

Subtract the view of one dimension and you have the Birth of all Variables.

Therefore it is to be understood that when you drive your car, you are only changing its direction of travel when you hit the brakes or when you step on the accelerator, and that the car itself actually has constant motion in Time - Space. By stepping on the brakes, or stepping on the accelerator, you are changing the direction of travel of your car in that Time - Space. And so in truth, you can never really Park your car. Therefore you can only receive a parking ticket for setting your cars direction of travel to be the same as the direction of travel of the surrounding objects which in this case are the streets. A speeding ticket is therefore what you receive if your angle of departure in Time - Space, exceeds acceptable limits.

In the LAND OF PHYSICS, the speed of LIGHT is also described as the (c)onstant known as " c ". Is it just a coincidence that a Logical analysis of motion produces a " c " constant as well ?  The speed of light is described as being the fastest possible speed, and nothing can move any faster. Is this true as well ?

The next step is an LIGHT analysis

Looking back in history, it was observed that if measuring the speed of light, even when measured under any circumstances, the results were always the same 300,000 km per second. For example, if you were able to throw a ball at a speed of 50 miles per hour and at the same time while throwing that ball you were on top of a train traveling in the same direction at 70 miles per hour, the end result would be that the ball would be traveling at 120 miles per hour relative to the ground or to a stationary observer the train was approaching. However, it was observed long ago that this did not apply to light. If instead you placed a flashlight on the train that is traveling at 70 miles an hour, pointing the flashlight in the same direction of travel, one would assume that the speed of light relative to the ground or a stationary observer, would be the speed at which the light left the flashlight plus the 70 miles per hour of the train. However, if you were not on the train, and you measured the speed of the light from a stationary point of view, the outcome was still the same 300,000 kilometers per second even though the source of the light was in motion at 70 miles an hour relative to you. 

Light speed measurement, was somehow always consistent !!!

On top of that, to simulate the above example, only in this case simulating being on the train, in 1887, Michelson and Morley performed tests that revealed that the apparent speed of light on the earth's surface, is not influenced by the earth's motion around the sun. If equipment was set up on the earth's surface to measure this consistent light speed, it did not matter which direction the light path was pointing, it did not matter whether it was with or against the direction the earth was traveling as it circled the sun, nor did it matter if the path was set sideways, the light speed was always measured as 300,000 km per second. However it is to be noted that under all the measurement conditions of this experiment, Earth is still on the move, therefore this test has only established that the measured speed of light is isotropic under these conditions. Therefore, we are not simulating the measurement of the speed of light taken both on the train and also off the train, but it is simply the direction of the measurement taken, relative to the train, or Earth on the move, that is being changed. And so, because of this, we can not say that if we took measurements while onboard the train, and also took measurements while not onboard the train, that we would obtain the same measurement results. This was put to the test at another date.

Michelson and Morley performed tests that revealed that the apparent speed of light on the earth's surface, is not influenced by the variation in speed of the earth's motion around the sun. This time they placed the tests six months apart such that one test takes place as the earth's orbit around the sun was it its maximum speed, and the other test was taken while the earth was at its minimum orbital speed. Once again, no differences were measured when comparing the results. However, it is to be noted that the experiment only verified that the speed of light had still passed the test of being Isotropic under these two test conditions, and that as shown in the diagram below, the Michelson-Morley (MM) test uses Round-Trip light paths as part of the experiment, therefore it does not compare light speed in one direction to the light speed in the opposite direction, but compares one Round-Trip pointing in one direction to another Round-Trip pointing at a 90 degree angle relative to the first, and it is only monitoring the constructive and destructive interference that is based on the length of the arms, rather than actually measuring the speed of light. Any differences that were to be detected, were to show as a fringe shift in the interference pattern created by the constructive and destructive interference.

The first step taken to partially explain this Round-Trip isotropic consistency of these earth bound measurements, was the result of a mathematical analysis of the situation, an analysis which implied that it must be the actual measurement instruments themselves that change when in motion. The (L)ength of a ruler, for instance, would actually become shorter if pointing in the direction of the earth's motion, or if on our train that is traveling at 70 MPH. This would then provide an explanation for the consistent 300,000 kilometers per second measurements.

Today this is known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction Equation, the very equation used by Einstein.

LOOK FAMILIAR ?

Yet mathematics is just a tool. As a result of this, the somewhat reliable explanations were achieved by physicists, but not fully understood. It did not explain why the contraction occurred and it did not reveal the (c)onstant Motion of all objects!   In my case, the first step taken is the analyzing of motion itself using simplistic thinking such that no small, and therefore simple, detail is overlooked, and I have therefore dismissed any use of the complex tool known as mathematics as part of that simplistic analysis. Instead, I have used this tool to convert my understanding of motion, into equations. My understanding of motion in turn created the very same Contraction equation.

Am I on to something ?

At a later time period, it was verified that the passing of Time slows down the faster one moves through space. In this case, two Atomic Clocks were compared. One was on the Earth's surface, and the other was loaded on to an airplane which then circled the planet. One Atomic Clock was therefore moving through space faster than the other. And sure enough, despite the extreme accuracy and stability of Atomic Clocks, the two clocks were no longer in sync once the plane was in the air, and the final outcome, being the different time reading between the two clocks once the plane had landed, could be explained by the following time period ( t2 - t1 ) contraction equation. The time period experienced on the airplane had become shorter than the time period measured on Earth, hence the Atomic clock on the airplane had indicated less passage of time when compared to the time period measured at the Atomic clock positioned on Earth.

LOOK FAMILIAR ?

My understanding of motion created the very same Time Period contraction equation.

Am I on to something ?

Note: Today, people are still using the brick age mentality, and so the equation that refers to the slowing down of Time, is today described as the Time Dilation equation. This implies that clocks are still ticking at their usual rate, but magically, Time itself has dilated, thus the rate of the clocks ticking is stretched across this new imaginary dilated Time dimension. My equation above, on the other hand, simply calculates the reduction of the rate of the passage of time. This reduction occurs since the clock is no longer traveling across the fixed dimension of Time as quickly as previously, and this is due to its constant motion now being directed more across the dimension of Space and less across the dimension of Time. As Fig. #4 illustrates, an increased motion across Space creates a reduced motion across the dimension of Time. The dimension of Time of the Time-Space continuum, has NOT been dilated.

At this point, which was prior to me completing grade ten, I borrowed a grade 12 Physics text book, to see if my equations had any value, and was tickled pink to find out that they were identical to those used by Einstein despite the difference of the " Time Dilation " title. The remaining pages were also completed prior to the completion of grade 10. Not having any education in Physics can and does prevent one from repeating the same mistakes of others, by not supporting ones theories upon flawed knowledge that belong to others.

Note: Because my thoughts, my simplistic thoughts, lead me to creating these very same equations, then there is no choice but to scrap them. Society says that simplistic thinking is always nothing but another meaningless case of SIMPLISM. What ever simplistic thinking reveals, it is always to be thrown away due to the social acceptance of the idea that all simplistic explanations are actually nothing but cases of over simplification.

Naturally, society is quite insane. The number of Laws of Physics required to create reality, or the universe as you see it, is less than the number of components within that universe. The complex programs running on your Computer right now, still exist even though the (C)entral (P)rocessing (U)nit within that computer can only make use of its severely limited number of extremely simple command functions known as operations. The computer does not have to be able to know of all the programs, and their complete usefulness, that the computer is exposed to within its life time, for it to be able to perform them.   No.   Instead, a very very simple (C)entral (P)rocessing (U)nit is all that is required to perform complex programs that are far more complex than the CPU itself.

At the   FOUNDATION   of   EVERYTHING,   there is always a  SIMPLICITY !

By ignoring the foundation, meaning ignoring the simplicity, a completeness of understanding can not be achieved. Also, when the simple pieces of the puzzle are assembled, once again one has achieved simplicity, as the final picture is constructed. Therefore, if you ignore simplicity, then the beginning and the end are both left outside of your present reach.

Let's get back to the analysis of reality. We have discovered that particles are four dimensional and therefore we must ask ourselves if this informs us of anything else. Also, even though Logic says that all objects or particles have a consistent and fixed motion in Time-Space, this still does not explain the consistency of the measurement of the Speed of Light ( 300,000 km per sec. ) that results no matter what spatial speed the source of the light itself also has, nor the speed of the platform on which the light measurements are taken, and so we must ask ourselves what it is that we are still missing.

MORE SEARCHING TO DO !

The next step, FOUR DIMENSIONAL PARTICLES ??

Understanding that particles are four dimensional, gives another important but simple understanding. Today's physicists state that some particles are known to have peculiar spin properties. For instance, a particle which is known to have a half spin property, is a particle that must rotate twice for its face to return to its original position. As shown in Fig. #6 below, if a dot-/ is placed on the particle, it would not be back to that same position and orientation unless the particle had rotated twice on its axis.

How can this be ?  

The only   explanation is that the axis itself is actually not just a spatial axis. If the axis tilts across the dimension of time as well, then not only does the dot-/ move through space during the rotation, but also moves through the dimension of time. The dot-/ will rotate around both spatially and rotate forward(+) and backward(-) across the time dimension. With only one rotation, the 1/2 spin particle then becomes a negative of itself !   It is not until it has completed a second rotation that it returns to being in its original self state. Our observations of the spin of a particle, are always taken from a limited point of view, a Relativistic point of view, here in the present time. Therefore, we can not see the complete Holistic view of a so called 1/2 spin particle, spinning in Time-Space. 

To put it another way, from our point of view, One Holistic Time-Space rotation = Two Relativistic rotations. 
or, 1/2 of a Holistic Time-Space rotation = One Relativistic rotation.

Note:  Once again, even if there is a case of an apparent spatial axis only, we observe this relativistically, meaning we can not state that an object, or particle, actually has an axis extending across space only, just as we can not say that a particle is truly at rest in space, but instead, relativistically it may appear to have only a spatial axis.    

FIG. # 6

Different Holistic axis angles in Time-Space, will determine the different limited Relativistic interpretations of these spin properties. It is to be noted that many different Holistic axis angles will appear to be the 1/2 or the -1/2 spin property from the limited Relativistic point of view.

Now since particles are four dimensional, and their spin extends across both Space and Time, interference between the Time-Space path of one moving particle and another, could produce some interesting interference patterns !  This will be discussed later on the " EVENTS " page.

These different Holistic axis angles also can be seen as different particle charges. If a particle appears to have an angular spin of " c ", or " OTHER ", it is to be noted that this is only the observed spatial spin of " c " or " OTHER " angular momentum. If a photon hits this particle, then additional momentum is transferred to this particle, yet at the same time the particles spatial angular momentum spin does not change at all.   How is this possible ?   It is possible because the additional force causes the axis of the particle to be shifted, thus extending further across the dimension of time, while the remaining percentage of the angular spin extending across space, the percentage being observed, STILL has the angular momentum of " c " or " OTHER ". Therefore the holistic angular momentum is now greater than its original angular momentum, but spatially, all is the same.

This also applies to electrons which are orbiting around the nucleus of an atom. Again if the electron is struck by a photon, the electron is raised to a higher charge level, meaning its orbital axis has changed Holistically, yet it also still retains the same angular momentum across only space. This change of the Holistic axis can occur many times over if struck by additional Photons. When the electron falls back to its previous level, it has returned to its previous Holistic angular momentum, and has released a Photon energy packet. Again this may be repeated if the Holistic axis angle in Time-Space had been changed several times over. Due to particles moving forward and backward across time as they Holistically spin, this also explains how the so called Quantum leap can occur, and explains exactly what a Quantum leap actually is.

Concerning Electrons, it is known that the axis of an electron can be rotated if the electron is placed within a magnetic field. The axis will line up with that magnetic field. However, it is to be noted that changing of the direction in which the axis points, does not mean that one has changed the axis angle extending across time, the Time- Space axis angle, but one has only changed the specific direction in which this Time- Space axis angle extends across space.

The next step, part two of 
FOUR DIMENSIONAL PARTICLES ??