Philosophical Critique Of

Perception and Motion

By Owen Martin, 2020
Keeping up with the earth is the primordial and eternal motion ineradicably and inseparably
participated in by this ball as a terrestrial object, which it has by its nature and will possess
forever - Galileo

Although the law of reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an
understanding of their own - Hereclitus

The first ideas that we form of things that are beyond us are ordinarily so obscure and so poorly
established that it is extremely dangerous to draw guaranteed results from them. It is therefore
always a great advantage when one already knows from elsewhere some conclusions to which
the first principles of metaphysics must lead; and it shall be upon these conclusions that the first
ideas of metaphysics must be regulated and determined - L.Euler

To free a man from error does not mean to take something from him, but to give him something.
For knowledge that something is wrong is a truth. No error, however, is harmless; every error
will cause mischief sooner or later to the man who fosters it - Schopenhauer.

Dedication - In Memory of Owen Martin, my great granduncle, who died in World War 1, 1916.

1
FOREWORD 3

INTRODUCTION 4

PERCEPTION - A NEW PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE 5

Perfect Perception - Numbers and Truth 5
Imperfect Perception 6

THEORY OF INDEPENDENT MOTION 9

- A New and More Accurate Theory than Newton’s 9

Relative Vs Absolute Motion 15
Motion of the Mediums 17
Independent Systems of Motion 18

SUMMARY SO FAR 19

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS MOTION 20

The Inertial Frame 20

EINSTEIN AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY 24

The Constant Speed Of Li​ght 24
Accelerated Frame of References 25
Gravitational Equivalence 25
​Facts of Perception and Facts of Reality 27
Light in Motion 29
BBC’s Time Travel Experiment 36
​Simultaneity 37
Synchronisation of Clocks 39

THE SPECIAL CASE OF LIGHT ? 42

NEWTON’S BUCKET EXPERIMENT 45

DESCARTES AND TIME 47

Mythbusters 49
Carl Sagan and His Bike Image 49
Descartes’ Facts Of Perception 50
Euler’s Absolute Space and Tim​e 52

Zeno’s Paradox - A Simple Solution 54

CONCLUSION - ENTER SIGNOR GALILEO 55

2
FOREWORD
This book started out as a place to expand my ideas on perception and philosophy but as I
waded through the science and in particular the Theory of Relativity, I began to see underlying
problems in the concepts and mathematics rather than just in terms of perception as initially
intended. As such, the book starts out on a philosophical footing but gradually moves into a
discussion on the science, taking a fresh look at the scientific concepts themselves. I introduce
a new theory, the Theory of Independent Motion, which helps explain the science of motion in a
new way and will, during the course of the book, help provide an alternative explanation for the
theoretical problems that Mach and Einstein encountered. I deal with a lot of video
demonstrations of Einstein’s thought experiments which can be found on YouTube. If these are
not true representations of Einstein’s work, then they are certainly the popular representation of
them today, with some of these videos receiving over a million views. As I approached the end
of the book, I realised that I hadn’t studied Galileo’s works on motion, and was pleasantly
surprised at what he had actually written and how it ties in with my own theories.

3
INTRODUCTION
It is perhaps not overstating the case too much, I hope, to say that the purpose of both
philosophy and science is to separate the apparent perception of the world as humans view it
from the true perception of the world as it is. Copernicus, arguably the first modern scientist,
dedicated much of his life to understanding the true perception of the heavens. Whilst there
were men who doubted that the Sun was moving in ancient times, the vast majority of people in
existence believed what their eyes and senses told them, that the Sun was moving in the sky
and that the Earth stood still. This has led philosophers down through the centuries to question
our perceptual abilities and consequently to doubt the existence of objective reality in its
entirety. To say that this was a fundamental error of epistemology and the logical method is an
understatement but it has led to many errors, most notably, Einstein’s theory of relativity. How
have we gone from Copernicus's perceptual leaps to Einstein’s perceptual quagmire ?

The philosophical tool that will help us navigate through this is what I call the “perceptual scale”.
There is a scale from imperfect to perfect perception and humans navigate their world through a
kind of “middle ground”. They can perceive a rock or a cliff in front of them, or a deer moving,
but they cannot perceive the moon moving in real time or the earth moving about the Sun.
There are good evolutionary reasons for this - not being able to perceive an enemy
approaching at a fast speed could be fatal, not being able to perceive the moon moving at 2,000
times that speed will not be fatal to survival.

Philosophers have pondered the question of what we can really know for certain for centuries
and the empiricist doctrine they developed has influenced science ever since. But it has led to a
kind of binary thinking about knowledge and our relationship with the world. Hume's fork divides
all truth claims into ideas that can easily be confirmed by their very nature and statements that
can only be verified by observation. But the reality is that human perception runs on a scale
from imperfect to perfect, hence the phrase half-truth, which lies somewhere in the middle.

When we try to make decisions in our lives, we try to do so with the best information, which can
come from other sources or from our own perception. Bad decisions are made because either
the source had imperfect information or else we had. Imperfect information arises from what we
call an imperfect reading of a situation, which I call imperfect perception.

4
PERCEPTION - A NEW PHILOSOPHICAL
PERSPECTIVE

Perfect Perception - Numbers and Truth

On one side of Hume’s fork of truths are relations of ideas such as arithmetic. This was a class
error made by the Scottish philosopher. Mathematics is a tool, not statements of truth in itself.
Much like language (as Wittgenstein pointed out) they are a very useful tool. Language and
mathematics are tools that humans developed to help them perceive the world and the latter
has proved to be the most useful tool to mankind. It is only when mathematics is applied that we
can begin to understand the underlying relationships of the world about us and the cosmos
above us and begin to move up the perceptual scale. It is applied in the real world through what
we call “ratios”. 2+2=4 is the tool, 4:2 is the application of that tool that gives us meaning. Two
trees plus two trees giving four trees does not provide us with any kind of truth. It is, as Ayer
pointed out, a tautology. However, four trees in this field, and two trees in the next field,
provides us with a truth about our surroundings. We now know there are twice as many trees in
the first field as in the second. If I am a woodcutter, I now know it will take me twice as long to
cut the trees in the first field as in the second. I am using ratios, even though I might not be
conscious of it.

In ancient Greece, the word logos commonly referred to reason and order, but one of its lesser
well known meanings is “in due proportion”. So when land was divided up, it would be divided
up in logos, according to rational principles and in due proportion. Numbers and Logos were
intertwined in the old language to give a higher meaning. This old meaning appears to have
been lost by the time of the emergence of the empiricist philosophers but was implicitly
understood by Newton and Kepler. ​Kepler uses the word ratio roughly 500 times in Harmonices
Mundi. Newton mentions ratio about 850 times in Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Fast forward to the early 20th century and Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead's book
Principa Mathematica. Ratio only appears once in Volume 1 and three times in Volume 2. In
Einstein's paper on Relativity, ratio only gets mentioned a couple of times more.

So now we can understand the mistake that philosophers since Berkeley have made in relation
to mathematics. Numbers do have independent reality when used in the form of the ratio. And
we will now see the higher meaning that this higher level of understanding gave us. That which
enabled us to move higher up the perceptual scale towards an improved perception of the world
- towards perfect perception on our scale. Truth is not a fork, it is a scale. Moving up the
perceptual scale towards perfect perception enables us to grasp closer at the truth.

5
In empiricist terminology, we all see sense-data, but we do not all perceive it the same way.
Some of us have better perception than others, that is, some can make better sense of the
sense-data. Sometimes we receive inadequate sense-data that gives a false perception, while
someone else simultaneously can receive better sense-data because they are closer to the
object or have a better vantage point. Perfect perception is an ideal, but is used here to illustrate
one extreme of the perception scale. Yet, that does not prevent man from acquiring a level of
perception that accurately reflects objective reality or truth.

A brown rectangular table exists. Most people will be able to see that it has four legs and has a
rectangular or at least a square shape with sharp edges. Not too many people will not see the
table at all and walk into it. Perhaps one side of the room has bad light. The people on that side
will recognise that it has a dark colour but may not be able to perceive the brownness. But
nobody in the room will deny that the table exists. Unless perhaps lets say the lights are turned
off and they are told that some objects will be removed. But the people can still use other
senses like touch to infer whether the table still “exists” or not. They can feel with their hands the
edges and the surface and the four legs and so on.

When we try to understand the reality above us in the skies we are like a person in a dark room.
Except, we do not have any other sense faculties like touch to aid us. We cannot reach out and
touch the moon to see if it really is made of cheese. So, we must develop other tools to aid our
understanding and improve our perception. This tool is called mathematics and under that
heading comes geometry and other related disciplines.

Let us now return to Copernicus to describe how this process works. And then to Kepler.

Imperfect Perception

The Greek philosopher Hereclitus explained how harmony of the opposites was the guiding
force in the universe. There can’t be a concept of hotness without the concept of coldness.
Morally speaking, there cant exist the concept of good without the existence of evil.

Now, suppose I see a large white rabbit appear beside me. I try to touch it but my hand does not
feel anything. I begin to doubt it’s existence. Everyone agrees, I was either dreaming or had a
hallucination. Science tells us that our minds do sometimes play tricks on us, especially when
under the influence of alcohol or other substances. It is asserted that the rabbit does not exist.
Empiricists have argued that in fact, as a result of this kind of experience, it is reality that does
not exist. The problem with this binary conclusion is that it ignores “normal” experience. When I

6
see a tree in front of me, I can reach out and lean against it with my hand. I can feel the
“woodness” of the tree and in some cases, I can even smell the scent of the tree. I could not
touch nor smell the rabbit. I have therefore less perfect perception in one case than in the other.
The rabbit was a case of imperfect perception. Just because we have imperfect perception does
not mean that reality does not exist. In the same way, just because my bank denies me money
does not mean money does not exist. Empiricists are throwing the metaphysical baby out with
the bathwater.

Further evidence for the claim that false perceptions do occur comes from science. It is well
accepted in psychology that optical illusions can give a false perception.

When we look into a glass of water, we see the straw or the spoon in it appear to bend. The
Moon sometimes appears larger when nearer the horizon. The sun and the stars appear to
rotate around the Earth. The surface of the earth appears flat. We sometimes dream of being in
far away places.

All of these are false perceptions and thus they are not accurate representations of reality.

Therefore, the assertion that there is a false perception, by way of necessity, implies that there
must be a true perception. For, how can the concept of a false perception make any sense
without the existence of its opposite to place it in context. Thus, there must be a true/false
dichotomy in perception.

Since this dichotomy has been proven, it follows from this, that the normal everyday perception
of our surroundings is a reasonably accurate representation of our immediate world. Since we
can see a tree, and can reach out and touch that tree, the tree exists independently and
objectively from us. The fact that the word “tree” is an arbitrary idea or form for an assemblage
of branches, trunks, roots, leaves etc common to a single entity is not relevant to the question of
that entity's existence.

However, this normal perception is only a true perception within a frame of reference that
provides the main basis of our experiences. To achieve a higher level of perception, one must
move further up the perception scale towards “perfect” perception. Therefore, truer perceptions

7
are graduated along a scale from normal “middle” perception to perfect perception. It was only
when man studied mathematics and geometry and the proportions of the world that he began to
achieve a higher perception of reality. These men have been small in number but they
somehow managed to bring most of humanity to a higher stage of perception. Over a period of
four or five hundred years, the majority of humanity progressed from the lower perception of the
earth centred solar system to the higher perception of the heliocentric based system, thanks to
the mathematical genius of Copernicus, along with the few mathematicians who came before
him and who’s work he drew on. The new perception replaced the older intuitive imperfect
perception. Intuition alone can only reveal a part of reality within the normal frame of reference,
man requires other tools to access other parts, outside that frame of reference. Before we move
on to the next part, remember that both perceptions could not be valid, there is an objective
reality outside of our intuitive perception - the heliocentric system. It then took another genius,
Kepler, to discover the ratio of the motions of the planets, his third law, which is one of the
greatest discoveries in science. Kepler also defined the correct perceptual position for
astronomers - that of a man sitting on top of the Sun. From this imaginary position, one can see
the true motions of the planets around the Sun, and it was from this position that astronomers
must take as the objective position when trying to understand the laws of the universe. It was
from this perceptual position that Kepler was able to work out that the orbits of the planets were
in fact elliptical and that the orbital area was swept out in equal times.

So we can establish from this that the perfect perception is that of a man sitting on the Sun, and
not that of the perception of a man sitting on Earth. One must begin at the source of the motion
to properly view the effects. We can call this the “perceptual source”. This is of course all within
a frame of reference within a certain system, that of the solar system. In order to further perfect
this perceptual source, we need to bring the point high above the Sun. Sitting on the Sun, we
cannot see precisely how far away each planet is, especially when planets are at different
angles. If we move the point to the centre of the Sun, then move upwards so a pyramid is drawn
with three equidistant points on the edge of the Sun, then the point at the top of the pyramid is
the perceptual source, i.e. Kepler’s independent observer. From this point, we are looking down
on the Sun and can see all the revolutions and distances of the planets free from positional bias.

In any system, one can find the position of independent perception, or the perceptual source, by
finding the point equidistant to the source of the motion.

8
THEORY OF INDEPENDENT MOTION

- A New and More Accurate Theory than Newton’s

If you think you understand motion, then you don’t understand it

The Earth is moving through space at about 67,000mph. Every object in motion moves from a
point of motion and at any instant along its path of motion, there can be said to be another point
of motion on the object.The point can be on the centre or at the front or at the back. Therefore,
any object on the moving object also moves at the same speed, regardless of its own motions.
That is, until this object manages to escape the larger moving object.

From this new theory of motion, we can see that every single object on Planet Earth also moves
at a speed of 67,000 mph, regardless of their own motions and regardless of what direction their
motion is in. This new theory will make much more sense as we progress.

Newton’s theory of relative and absolute motion is illustrated by his ship analogy. Earth moves
east at a velocity of 10,010 parts, a ship moves west at a velocity of 10 parts and a sailor on the
ship moves east at a velocity of 1 part. According to Newton, the absolute velocity of the sailor
is 10,001 parts east, and his relative velocity on earth is 9 parts west. These figures seem to
agree with our intuition and knowledge of basic arithmetic but as with many things about
perception, our intuition is often wrong, and contradictory as we will find out. In fact, the sailor
moves with an absolute velocity of 10,010 parts east, that is, the same as the Earth’s velocity.
The point of motion on the Earth can be anywhere on Earth and the movement of the ship is
irrelevant as it is a part of the Earth. We will further refine this.

The relative velocity of the sailor is 10 parts west, that is, the same as the ships. The sailor is a
part of the ship and therefore moves with the ship. The point of motion on the ship can be
anywhere on the ship including the sailor himself. Unless the sailor jumps in the sea, his
motions are one and the same with the ship. Many will be convinced I am wrong at this stage, it
is of course obvious the sailors motions are separate from the ships and according to his
direction of motion, his relative motions will either be positive or negative.

Let’s now have the sailor move with a velocity of 1 part west, in the same direction as the ship.
According to Newton, he will move relatively on earth with a velocity of 11 parts. This will now
mean that the sailor is moving faster than the ship. If an onlooker is standing on the shore, does
he see the sailor move at 11 parts and the ship at 10 parts ? No, he does not. This is not how
perception works. Our eyes see a point on the ship, then we see the point move in space
relative to the horizon or another object on the sea such as a buoy. We are then able to

9
perceive the motion of the ship. Our senses in this case accurately perceive how motion
operates in reality. ​The sailor cannot move with an absolute velocity faster than that of the
ship’s, ​which would be the case if we discount the motion of the earth. If that were the case he
could arrive at destination X faster than the ship which we know is impossible. The sailor arrives
at destination X at the same time as the ship. Once the point of motion on the ship becomes
stationary relative to the horizon, and the ship has arrived at its destination, every single part of
that ship and every object on board has also arrived at the destination, at exactly the same time.
This fact, everyone understands intuitively, and is the convention for every form of transport in
every part of the world. Nobody has ever said, my plane has arrived at New York, but I’m at the
back of the plane so I have yet to arrive.

But surely, some readers are saying, it is possible for the sailor to move faster than the ship?
The sailor could run at 11 parts, and move faster relative to the ship. That is true, he will move
faster than the ship. Now, let’s say he runs forwards and backwards on the ship at 20 parts,
without leaving the ship. His absolute velocity is still the same as the ships, i.e. 10. He will arrive
no earlier nor any later than the ship at destination X, even though he is moving at a faster
relative velocity.

If the sailor wishes to arrive at destination X before the ship, he could be fired out of a canon on
the ship at a velocity great enough to reach the shore, and which must be greater than that of
the ships. For the sailor to move at a higher velocity relative to the ship, he must be fired out of
the canon at a velocity greater than 10 parts, if fired in the same direction as the ship​. ​We can
say that the sailor, once fired from the canon, is a separate “system of motion” to the system of
the ship, in that his motion is independent and apart from the ship’s. But relative to the motion of
the earth, both the ship and the sailor are absolutely moving though space at 67,000mph or in
Newton’s example 10,010 parts. We normally use the ​perceptual convention​ of ignoring the
earth’s motion for objects moving on earth, which is a reasonable representation of reality as
bodies on the earth do not perceive this motion.

So to sum up :

Given,

Earth Velocity = 10,010 parts east

Ship Velocity = 10 parts west
Sailor Velocity = 1 parts east

10
 Motion of Sailor - Including Newton’s Theory of Motion My New Theory of Motion
Earth’s Motion

Absolute Motion 10,001 east 10,010 east

Relative Motion 9 west 10 west

Motion of Sailor - Excluding Newton’s Theory of Motion New Theory of Motion

Earth’s Motion

Absolute Motion 9 west 10 west

Relative Motion 1 east 1 east

For relative motion with no account taken of the Earth’s motions, Newton would say that the
sailor is moving 1 part in 10 to the east which is the same as my new theory. Although, it could
be said that the relative direction of the sailor has no meaning as he is still part of the same
system as the ship moving westwards.

Newton’s error is an error in perception of motion. Every object in motion begins motion from a
point of force, an external force as Newton’s first law of motion correctly states. We can assert
that the pistons are the point of force on the ship, and therefore the point of motion. Everything
on the ship moves with the same velocity as that point of motion, relative to someone not on
that ship. Relative to objects on the ship, objects in motion on the ship do have a relative
velocity ​independent​ of the ship's motion. From this perspective, the motion of the ship is not
accounted for. But the absolute velocity of those objects remains the velocity of the ship
irrespective of their own movements, if the motion of the earth, as is convention, is not
accounted for.

So now we have a more accurate model for perception of motion than Newton’s which I have
called the theory of Independent Motion. Newton’s concept of absolute and relative motion was
based around a simple arithmetical method with points in space plotted on a grid, composed of
pluses and minuses - a mathematical or Cartesian grid if you like. But there is no concept of
absolute plus or minus direction in space. In head on collisions, the term closing speed is used
to refer to the cumulative speed effect of vehicles colliding in opposite directions. It is calculated,
not by using + and - to take account of the different directions, but by adding together both
speeds of the vehicles. So if both vehicles are travelling at 50mph in opposite directions, then
the closing speed of their collision is 100mph. The forces involved are equal but opposite, as
per Newton’s third law, but the velocities are cumulative. It is an error of class (a category error)

11
to assign what are force values to velocity values, but this is what Newton did, and what
mathematicians have done since.

With my new theory of motion, the sailor is always moving in proportion with the ship at a rate of
1:1, until such time as he disembarks the ship altogether (or is fired out of a canon).

It is important at this stage to say that I am not disputing Newton’s three laws of motion, which
have validity in the real world, but his understanding of relative and absolute motion is flawed
because he had imperfect perception about the concept of motion. This flaw has continued to
the present day because nobody put enough effort into thinking about them, until Einstein came
along (although he still got it wrong). However, more on him later.

Before I leave the ship, I want to finish with two final examples. Suppose the ship moves at 50,
and a second ship moves in the same direction at 40. On the second ship a sprinter runs back
and forth at 20. According to the textbooks, the sprinter will have a relative velocity of 60 when
he runs in the same direction as the ships. Yet the ship moving at 50 will still overtake him and
the ship. Therefore his absolute velocity must be 40, i.e. the speed of the second ship. The
runner and the ship are one and the same system of motion. Now suppose the man on the first
ship moves at 40 in the opposite direction to the ship. This gives him a net velocity of 10. A man
on the shore running in the same direction as the ship moves at 12. This means the man on the
shore moves faster than the man on the ship even though the ship is obviously moving faster
than him.

We must correct these mathematical anomalies which is one of the main reasons I have for
writing this book.

- - - - - - - -

Now, let's look at another flawed perception of motion that appears in physics textbooks. A man
fires an arrow out of the window of a train at a velocity of 200mph, in the same direction as the
train. The train is moving at a constant speed of 100mph. At the exact same time, a man on the
ground fires an arrow in the same direction at the same velocity, from a position exactly parallel
with the man in the train. Both arrows hit a target, say 100 yards away. The textbooks state that
the arrows will arrive at the target at different speeds relative to the man on the ground - the
arrow fired from the train will arrive at 300mph, while the other one, at 200mph. It is a case of
simple addition, 200 plus 100.

The point of force of the arrow on the train is the withdrawn bow, it is not the train. The point of
motion on the arrow then moves along with the arrow as it shoots through the air. It is the
instant at the point of force that we need to focus on. The instant just prior to both arrows being
shot from their bows. If we freeze-frame this moment in time and draw a straight line through
both men at the point of force on their bows it will enable us to perceive the situation much

12
better. The point of force on the arrow is no longer the train. The arrow is now a separate
system to the train and therefore, it’s motions are completely independent. It’s velocity is
completely dependent on the force exerted on the bow. The arrow moves at a velocity of
200mph, the same as the arrow on the ground. They will both arrive at the target at the same
speed, ​from any perspective​. Now, you are probably still unconvinced. However, consider that
under classical physics, the speed of the arrow on the train will always be greater than the
speed of the train, relative to the man on the ground. If it is fired at 1mph, then its relative
velocity will be 101mph. Somehow, with only 1/100th of the force, the man on the train can
shoot his arrow faster than the arrow shot from the man on the ground and faster than the train.
This means that theoretically his arrow could pass the train and reach a point X on the track
before the train ! Let’s think about what this really means. The arrow is fired at 1mph, at 1/100th
of the force of the arrow fired from the ground. The man on the ground sees the arrow sail
through the air at 101mph. He sees the train moving at 100mph. The arrow lands at a spot on
the track just before the train reaches the same spot. The man on the ground must use over 101
times the force to reach the same spot before the train. It is of course impossible. The arrow on
the train will fall to the ground very quickly at 1 mph.

If James Bond is leaping from the front of the train, he must leap at a speed higher than 100mph
to land in front of the train. If he leaps at 10mph, he will for an instant, leap further than the train,
but the train will very quickly catch up and kill him while he is in midair. So he must leap with a
point of force in his body stronger than that of the train's engine. He cannot use the force of the
train to outrun the train.

Now you might say but what if an arm extended from the front of the train, and reached spot X
before the train. Couldn't it move at 1mph and therefore relative to the man on the ground at 101
mph? First, we must establish what is the point of force of the arm. It is the point on the train
that pushes the arm outwards. From this point, we can measure the actual velocity of the arm at
1mph. Therefore, in some ways it is a separate system. Should the arm become stationery, it
would then become part of the “train system”. But when it moves, it is a separate system. If it
collides with something on the track the initial collision is only between the arm and the object. It
is for all purposes the same as an unconnected train travelling at 101mph in front of the train
going at 100 even though the arm is connected. It is only when some resistance is experienced
by the arm colliding with an object, that the full force of the train is transferred to the top of the
moving arm. But the arm is an unusual case. The slower the arm moves relative to the train, the
more it is a part of the train system, the faster it moves relative to the train, the more it is like a
separate system. This is because at very slow speeds, the movements of the arm are in the
main, dictated by the movement of the train, whereas when the arm moves faster, it is more akin
to a projectile. Any residual resistance on the track met by the former will be quickly overcome
by the force of the train, whereas any resistance met by the latter will either result in it being
overcome by the force of the arm or lead to the arm breaking. But I have digressed. So far, we
have concluded that :

13
The independent point of force is crucial in deciding whether a moving object is a separate
system or not from another system, and secondly whether this point of force can result in that
object traversing further in distance, absolutely, than the other system.

Conservation of Energy

Conservation of Energy only applies to an isolated system. The arrow shot from the train is an
isolated system, in that its energy is generated from the point of force and is conserved at all
times. The energy from the train is never transferred to the arrow.

And so, with the arrow shot at 200mph from the train, it will travel at 200mph, the same velocity
as the arrow shot from the ground. They will both hit the target at the same time and at the
same speed. It's ultimate velocity is measured from its point of force which is 200mph. Is this
absolute or relative? Both arrows are fired from the moving and spinning earth, but there is no
force experienced from this on the arrows. The absolute speed of both arrows is the same as
the speed of the earth, but discounting this, the absolute speed of both arrows is measured from
the point of force - 200mph for both. The relative velocity of 300mph arises from a false
perception that both the arrow and the train are part of the same system.

One of the perceptual problems caused by motion, in particular things moving at relatively high
velocities, is that everything happens so fast, that we perceive two different systems as one,
and we perceive too much information in too short a time, and so we arrive at a false (or
imperfect perception) of what is actually happening. For evolutionary reasons, it was never
important that we could perceive the reality of very fast motion, it was only important that we
could perceive that an adversary roughly this far away could shoot an arrow or a spear in
roughly this amount of time and that we needed to react relatively quickly at the present time in
order to survive. We need to slow everything down to really grasp motion. At each frame of
motion just prior to the arrow being shot from the train, the force of the moving train cannot
impinge on the arrow. Up until the point when the arrow is shot from the bow, the absolute
motion of the arrow is the speed of the train - 100mph, just as it is for every object on board. If
we freeze frame the exact point when the bow is fully withdrawn, the train is no longer in motion
and the bow might just as well be sitting stationary on the ground. As soon as the arrow is shot,
the bow and the man continue in absolute motion on the train at 100mph, but the bow moves
independently. Now you will probably say, but the freeze frame does not happen in real life, the
arrow is fired on the moving train. But, it is what happens at the exact point of force that matters.
If the bow is fully withdrawn then very slowly unwithdrawn, the arrow will move very slowly and
with little force behind it. And in this instance, the velocity of the arrow may well be much slower
than the train’s. Most likely it will simply fall out of the window. But as the bow is slowly

14
unwithdrawn and the arrow fails to shoot with any great force, both the bow and arrow remain
part of the train system over that time till its free from the bow. Now, what happens when the
arrow is shot properly ? As the bow is fully withdrawn, the arrow is shot with maximum force. At
that instant, the arrow is no longer a part of the train system, it has a force of its own because
the force is imparted on the arrow over a very short period of time, akin to one frame of our
freeze frame. During this frame, the train is motionless. At the next frame the arrow is free, the
train has barely moved forward. This is what occurs at the “minute” levels of motion. If atomic
structures are important for understanding larger physical structures, then the atomic
components of motion are also important for understanding motion at the level of human
experience.

Between the frames which the arrow moves free of the bow and just prior to that when the arrow
is withdrawn to its maximum, the train has barely moved at all. The instant which the arrow is
free is the instant it becomes a separate system, and in this instant or frame the train has
moved even less.

Let’s say there is a very long rope on the train tied to the arrow. The arrow will still be a separate
system as it sails through the air. It will cease to be a separate system when the arrow has
travelled a distance equal to the length of the rope. At this point, the point of force of the train is
the point of force of the arrow, as it is for any object attached to the train.

Relative Vs Absolute Motion

Up until now, I have used the words absolute and relative without really explaining them and
how they relate to my new theory. Let's go back to the ship. The sailor walks on the ship. His
movements are relative to the ship, so if he walks at 1 unit and the ship moves 10, he moves
relative to the ship 1:10. That is, the ratio of 1 is to 10. His absolute motion as already explained
is 10, that is, he can't move relative to the sea (or the earth) , any slower or faster than the ship.
His absolute movement through earth is 10. Under Newtonian and Galilean theory, we can
simply add or subtract the respective motions depending on direction. This is completely
incorrect. Under my new theory, which I believe is much more representative of reality, it is not
possible to add or subtract absolute and relative motions, but only to compare them, in the form
of the ratio, the real world application of mathematics. It is once again an error of class. It is akin
to adding apples and oranges together - the result is meaningless. If I have 3 slices of cake and
you have one, then the correct form of comparison is 3:1, I have three times as much as you. It
is correct to say that together we have four slices in total but it would be incorrect to assign that
total of 4 to either one of us. However this is exactly what the current explanation of motion
does.

15
But surely, if both motions are in the same units, you can add them? Well, it actually doesn't
make sense to add ratios for speed like that. Say I'm running twice as fast as you are i.e 2:1.
What does adding together our respective speeds mean? That together we are running three
times (or thirty times) someone else ? Of course not. Or perhaps that we have a combined
speed of 3 ? Three in relation to what? The cumulative speeds of two objects with separate
points of force has no meaning. These are meaningless calculations.

Likewise, neither can the velocities of two different systems be added together.

As for direction, there is no objective direction in space. However, bodies can have direction
relative to each other.

Swallows and Bats

Think about how Swallows or bat's perception of motion

must be much better than humans. They have to perceive the minute
motions of a fly. In their world, very fast motion is the norm.

But surely there is no such thing as absolute velocity?

Many critics of my theory of Independent Motion will claim that there is no such thing as
absolute velocity, that everything is relative. If this is true, then the simple formula, speed equals
distance multiplied by time, would not hold true. But this formula is something that is used every
day. If we wish to travel from A to B, we must find the distance, then if we know our average
speed, we can calculate how long it will take to travel this distance. Travelling from A to B
requires absolute velocity, otherwise we would never reach B. Any other related motions along
the way are relative. Therefore, the distance from A to B must be absolute.

In reality, it is the concept of relative velocity that does not exist. As with the concept of relative
perception, the concept of relative velocity has no meaning in nature since all objects in motion
move independently and with an absolute velocity as measured from their point of force when
they were stationary. We can know when an object is moving absolutely, and that it is not the
background that is in motion, by the simple fact that we can assert that a force has been applied
to it. If we are not aware that a force has been applied, then we have imperfect perception and
our perception of relative motion is flawed. We use the concept of relative motion as a handy
convention when comparing velocities of moving objects within the same frame of reference and
that is fine, but science has erred in treating this relative motion as a part of objective reality.

16
Motion of the Mediums

Now, some people will say “what about a man swimming in a river, or a man running on a
conveyor belt, surely this proves your theory wrong, because the more the man moves or
swims, the faster he will absolutely move compared to the man who doesn’t. Due to the forces
already acting on him from the moving water or belt”. On the face of it, this might sound like a
mortal wound for my new theory of motion. However, on more serious reflection, it becomes
apparent that what we mean when we talk about water in motion such as rivers or tides, or
moving ground such as an escalator belt or continental drift, we are talking about the medium.
The medium being the form of matter where the motions of the object takes place. If we return
to the ship, the ship is moving through water, the water may be moving with it or against it, it is
also moving through air, the air may be pushing with it or against it. This will be common for all
ships and boats in that local area and therefore forms part of the “noise” background when we
are comparing motions. As the greek philosopher Hereclitus pointed out, everything is in flux.
We must ignore these commonalities when trying to compare relative and absolute motions
because they are the “common denominator”. It is the independent motion of the ship that we
are concerned with, and that’s what ultimately brings the ship from point A to B.

The meaning of absolute motion is that motion which brings an object from point A to B. The
medium through which it must traverse is not relevant because the ship has its own point of
force, separate from the medium, and that is what we are concerned with.

A man, it is true, running on an escalator or conveyor belt can move faster than a man on a
parallel belt not moving independently. But he is using the medium available to him, in fact they
both are. It is only because the belt’s motions are relatively fast, that we see it as part of his
absolute motion. What if continental drift, the movement of the Earth’s continents, occurred
faster than a few centimeters per year ? Suppose it occurred at 2 miles per year. Would we now
consider this part of everyone’s absolute motion ? Would we now have to add this on to the
speed of the train and the speed of the arrow ? It would not make sense to do so on a localised
basis, since like the actual levels of continental drift, it is common for everyone.

Now, it can be argued that there are certain times when we would like to include the motions of
the mediums. For these cases, we will need to add or subtract the motions of the medium to
arrive at a new absolute motion. ​This is the exception to the rule that you cannot add
absolute and relative motions.​ If the absolute motion of the conveyor belt is 10 and the man
on it walks at 10 relative to the stationery man on the parallel belt, then we can add the absolute
and relative motion and he will move at a new absolute motion of 20, so double the speed of the
other man. If the man were to shoot an arrow, that arrow would still be a separate system, and
would move independently of the moving belt and the moving man.

17
Independent Systems of Motion

As already stated, both the concepts of relative perception and relative velocity have no
meaning in nature. But we use it as a handy convention when comparing velocities of moving
objects in the same frame of reference. Because physicists define velocity in terms of direction,
two trains travelling in opposite directions, will miraculously have greater velocities relative to
each other than their respective absolute velocities. Take train A travelling East at 40mph, Train
B travelling West at 20mph. Train A will, under classical mechanics, have a velocity of 60mph
relative to Train B. But in reality, the velocity of Train A is limited at all times by it’s absolute
velocity relative to its point of force, i.e. when it was at rest. The relative velocity of 60mph has
no objective meaning. It is an abstract number. It’s true velocity will always remain at 40mph.
Now, it is true to say that the trains will be 60 miles closer to each other after one hour, but this
is a statement in relation to distance not velocity.

Now, say that the two trains are moving in opposite directions at the same velocity i.e 20mph,
and over the same distance from A to B. Both trains will reach A and B respectively at the same
time. At no point does either train move at a relative velocity of 40mph and therefore arrive
quicker than the other one. The correct form for comparing their velocities is once again the
ratio. They move in proportion to each other at velocities of 1:1 (proportional velocity). In the
previous example, it will be 2:1. The allocation of a direction to Train B is arbitrary and again has
no basis in reality.

Likewise, if both trains were travelling in the same direction at the same speed, the relative
velocity of both trains would not be zero as is claimed. Their proportional velocity would remain
as before, at 1:1. Just because from a certain perspective on one of the trains, the other train
doesn’t appear to be moving, does not make that a valid perspective. In fact, it is a false and
imperfect perception, an anti-Copernican doctrine, that is akin to believing that the earth does
not move. The purpose of science is to identify these perceptual errors and replace them with
the true nature of reality.

I hope this book goes a long way to rectifying those errors. Before I move on to the next part, let
us summarise the main propositions of my new theory of motion.

18
SUMMARY SO FAR

1) You cannot add or subtract the relative motions of two moving bodies in the same
system to arrive at a new relative or absolute motion. The absolute motion of both bodies
will be the motion of that body which enables both bodies to traverse between two points
on a plane or in a medium. Both motions can however be compared by use of ratios.

2) A body in motion will be a separate system to another connected or related body in

motion, if it has a separate point of force that enables it to move further through the
plane or medium than the other related body. It is not possible to add or subtract the
absolute motions of these bodies, as measured from their respective points of force, to
arrive at a relative motion. The correct form for comparison is through ratios.

3) For two completely independent systems of motion, it is not possible to add or subtract
their absolute motions to arrive at a relative motion since the only valid perception is that
measured from the point of force or source. Nor is it possible to assign to one of them a
negative value due to their opposing directions since there are no objective values for
direction. The correct mathematical form for comparing their respective motions is the
ratio.

4) It is possible to have a higher relative motion than absolute motion. However, the
absolute motion is the only true motion that has a basis in reality and is what ultimately
moves an object from point A to B through a medium.

5) A medium may have motion of it’s own and this is the only case whereby two relative
motions can be added or subtracted to arrive at a new absolute motion. In most cases,
as in the case of continental drift, the motion of the medium is not relevant and common
to all moving and stationary bodies within a frame of reference.

6) Motion is defined as an object moving through a medium from point A to B.

19
IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS MOTION

Speed = Distance / Time

Everyone knows this simple formula from school but which came first ? Space (distance) or time
? Or Motion (speed) ? Most people would probably say space or time. Actually, there had to be
motion first, most likely acceleration, to create the space and time. The motion of course would
have to be initiated by a force but I won't speculate on the cause of that for now.

From this initial point of motion, time began. It is from this point that the only objective and
absolute clock of the universe began and has measured time since.

The expansion of space is balanced out by the retraction of space and the matter contained
therein. This process we call gravity. If there was no balancing mechanism for the expansion of
space then the laws of conservation would break down. The planets originally moved about in a
rectilinear path (as Newton proposed) until the force from the sun drew them into a circular path.

The common assumptions used by Einstein and others with regards to classical mechanics are
incorrect as I have shown. They assume that all perspectives are equally valid. However, for
any frame of reference, there is only one perspective that is ultimately valid and holds true, as is
the generally accepted case in celestial mechanics i.e the sun does not revolve around the
earth. This conflict between celestial and classical mechanics has never been dealt with until
now (as far as I am aware).

The Inertial Frame

It follows that the concept of the inertial frame of reference is partially flawed because it
assumes that rest or motion can only be described with respect to some frame of reference,
when there is another very important factor that needs to be considered, namely, the point of
force applied to the body, that is the force required to put the body in a state of motion or the
force required to set the body at rest from a state of motion. A snooker ball moving very fast on
a table will require some force from your hand to stop it. Hitting the table with your hand will not
stop the motion of the ball. In this “inertial frame of reference”, we can assert that it is the ball
and not the table that is in motion, because the force required to put the ball back to a state of
rest is applied to the ball only.

20
The absolute motion of a body within a frame of reference can only be asserted with
respect to the point of force required to put it in motion or to put it to rest.

The fact that observers within different frames of reference view different bodies in motion does
not indicate a flaw in nature or in the absolute quantities thereof. It indicates a flaw in the
perception of the individuals who are unaware of the points of force being applied. An observer
on a train moving at constant speed will see objects outside the train moving backwards at
constant speed, whilst an observer on the ground will see the train moving at a constant speed
in a straight line. Only one observer can be correct, and it is the latter one, who is aware of the
point of force acting on the train. Likewise, the observer sitting on the sun, can see the point of
force on the Earth, and therefore, has a more accurate perception of the solar system than a
pre-Copernican observer on Earth.

Newton’s law of inertia therefore must apply to all observers even if they are aware of it or not.

The same reasoning can be applied for simultaneous events which I will discuss later. The
quantities in a simultaneous event are absolute, regardless of how the event is perceived by
different observers.

The fact that humans are unable to perceive if a body is in a state of motion or at rest without a
frame of reference does not mean that there are no objective or absolute states. Nature does
not owe man an explanation or provide free insights by means of his basic levels of perception.

A ball floating in space has no frame of reference and therefore under classical mechanics it is
impossible to know if the ball is in motion (say in free fall under the force of gravity) or if it is in a
state of rest. This seemingly unresolvable situation can be resolved through introducing two
bodies, each with a point of force. Their points of force can be switched off and on. Let’s say
they look like snow-plows but in space. Space-plow A will be on one side and Space-plow B will
be on the other. B turns on its engines and induces a force on the ball and then switches off its
engines. The ball moves in a straight line from B towards A. A switches on its engines and
collides with the ball bringing it to rest. It then reverses and turns off its engines, then shortly
after turns them back on and collides once again with the ball. The ball moves in a straight line
from A towards B. B switches on its engines and collides with the ball, putting it back to rest. It
then reverses backwards and switches off its engines. And so on. At each stage, the switching
on and off of the engines is easily visible and therefore it can be clearly asserted when a force is
being applied and vice versa.

This would allow an observer to deduce that the original state of the ball was that of rest. If the
ball was moving, then the initial force applied by Space-plow B, would have brought it to rest but
what the observer actually saw was the ball moving through space away from B and towards A.
In this way, we have created a frame of reference between A and B to allow us to perceive the
absolute motion of the ball and we have introduced visible forces to enable us to verify the initial
stationary position of the ball.

21
Now, what if the ball and the space-plows are in free fall in a gravitational field ? Wouldn’t the
ball and the plows appear to be stationery within a certain frame of reference as they fall
together at the same speed ? It’s true they would. But that’s where the point of force concept
comes in. It will now require more force to move Snow-plow B upwards against gravity and
induce a force against the ball and put it in motion towards A. Conversely, it will require less
force to move Snow-plow A downwards with gravity and bring the ball back to rest. Because of
these force differentials between the two space-plows, we can know the true state of the ball in
the second scenario, that is, that it is in a state of free fall. Whereas in the first scenario, equal
force was required for both snow-plows.

Now, this may appear too complicated, and aren't we just simply introducing a frame of
reference where there was none in empty space in the first place. From the point of view of an
observer, without aid from the space plows and their visible forces, it is impossible to assert the
true state of the ball. And indeed, it may be impossible to assert the state of the observer, he
may be floating or in motion himself. And hence, all motion is really relative.

Well the fact is that motion may be relative for observers, but it is not relative for nature. Nature
does not require the aid of the space plows or the visible forces to assert the true motion of a
body.

Let us now return to the train. Suppose the train falls off a cliff where it is now in free fall and
with no initial velocity or force imparted i.e the train fell off a cliff from a stationary position on the
edge of the cliff. The only force acting on the train now is g, the acceleration due to gravity. The
archer then shoots the arrow downwards in the direction of the falling train. The only forces
acting on the arrow now are g plus v, i.e the force imparted by the archer on the arrow.
Therefore, the arrow will hit the ground before the train. It would not make sense to add the
speed of the train to the speed of the arrow, as both are in the same gravitational field.
Therefore, at the exact point that the arrow is fired, the train and the arrow could be thought of
as being stationary relative to each other, because both bodies are accelerating at the same
rate. Therefore, no extra force can ever be imparted on the arrow from an additional velocity of
the train. Let’s say the train had boosters, if it applied those boosters while in free fall before the
arrow was shot, no additional force would be imparted on the arrow from the boosters, for the
same reason that they are stationary relative to each other at the point of force of the arrow.

This shows an inconsistency in the current theory of relative motion, whereby, two bodies
moving at the same speed, are moving at zero relative to each other, but somehow when a
projectile is fired from one of these bodies, the motion of the body is added to that of the
projectile’s, as if the projectile was also not moving stationary relative to the body.

Now in reality, it is not an accurate representation to say that the arrow and the train are moving
stationary relative to one another, it is more accurate to say that they are moving in proportion to

22
each other at a ratio of 1:1. I have used the language of relativity here to outline the
inconsistencies inherent with the theory.

And so the same will apply to a train moving at constant velocity on the ground. It will only be
when the train is in deceleration (when it brakes) that a forward force could be imparted on the
arrow as an equal but opposite force arises to counteract the opposing deceleration force. As
per Newton's third law.

When the train is at constant velocity, that is when it's not accelerating or decelerating, the
forces acting on it are perfectly balanced and so Leonardo da Vinci could have on a perfectly
flat rail line painted the Mona Lisa just as well on a train moving at constant velocity.

So I think I have made the point clear, that on a train moving at constant velocity, there is no
mechanism whereby the train could impart a force on an arrow fired from the train. The velocity
of the arrow is only dependent on the force imparted on it by the archer and by g, the
gravitational field, in this case acting perpendicular to the arc of the arrow. These are the same
forces that act on an arrow from a stationary archer. Hence, the velocities of an arrow shot from
a train and from the ground are the same if the force imparted by the archer is the same.

And if there is a target on the ground, the arrow must hit the target at velocity x for all observers,
if it were to hit the target at different velocities depending on the observer, then it would impact
at varying forces - the observer on the ground would witness the arrow penetrating deep into the
target, perhaps right through it to the other side, the observer on the train would witness the
arrow only penetrating the surface of the target. This of course is impossible, the arrow must
reach the target at the same velocity.

23
EINSTEIN AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

THE CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT

Einstein rightly believed that the speed of light is fixed relative to all observers. This is obvious
from my concept of the point of force. When you return to the source of the light, the velocity of
the light always remains constant from this position. This is the only valid perception.
Copernicus and Kepler, when trying to investigate the difficulties with the earth centred system-
resolved the matter by going straight back to the source, the Sun.

Einstein’s interest in light began when he had a dream as a child about travelling on a beam of
light running parallel to another beam of light. He pondered that the beam of light must be
moving with a relative velocity of zero to the beam of light he was sitting on. This presented to
him a conflict between Newton's laws of motion and Maxwell’s proof that the speed of light was
fixed. What he needed to do to solve this apparent Paradox was to return to the source of the
motion as Copernicus and Kepler did for the solar system. Instead, what Einstein did was
dispense with Newton’s idea of absolute time altogether, when the problem actually lay with
Newton's concept of relative motion as I have shown.

The parallel beam of light of course does not travel at a relative speed of zero, but instead
travels in proportion to the other beam of light at a ratio of 1:1. With this method of comparison,
the speed of the light beam maintains its absolute speed while also showing that the speeds for
both light beams are the same.

The parallel beam of light only has velocity relative to its point of source, which is it’s absolute
and fixed velocity. The perception of a stationary state for two bodies moving at the same speed
is an imperfect perception, an illusion, that works within a given domain, but is invalid as an
accurate representation of reality.

The Earth also appears stationary.

24
ACCELERATED FRAME OF REFERENCES

In an accelerated frame of reference, objects not subject to external forces appear to accelerate
and this fact (of perception) led Einstein to develop his theory on General Relativity. For
example, objects at rest on the ground when you ride a merry-go-round appear to move. The
key word here is “appear”. This is a fact of perception, not a fact of reality.

Let’s say you sit on a merry-go-round that is not moving. You see the objects on the ground as
they are - stationary. Then suddenly you see the objects begin to move faster and faster.
Somebody on the ground can see exactly what has happened even if you cannot. Somebody
has pushed the merry-go-round. That is the point of force. This person can see the point of
force and he can refer to his (inertial) frame of reference which tells him that all other nearby
objects are stationary. Only one view or perception can be valid. It is of course the latter who is
aware of both the point of force and the frame of reference.

Even if the observer was not in an inertial frame of reference, he could still check the points of
force, required either to move all the objects or required to slow the movement of the objects.
He could push against the merry-go-round and decelerate it. Or he could simply place his hands
gently on it. If the merry-go-round really was not moving, he would experience no force against
his arms as he placed his hands on it. If it really is moving, he would experience a force on his
hands. In other words, some kind of force will be required either to move an object or stop it. If
he places his hands against an object nearby on the ground he will find no force pressing
against him. Likewise, if he manages to decelerate the merry go round the person sitting on it
will feel a forward inertial force in response, the same force that you feel in a car when the
brakes are applied.

So the accelerated frame of reference is easily resolvable but we must first discard the notion
that all perceptions are equally valid.

In fact Newton's first law resolves all of these frame of reference dilemmas. The fact that a
moving object can only change its state by an external force gives us a method of detecting the
absolute motion of an object.

Gravitational Equivalence

The analogy that Einstein uses to conceptualize his theory of equivalence is the famous room
accelerating upwards in space. The room is far from any gravitational field but presumably it has
rocket boosters or such like to force it upwards, not at a constant velocity, but accelerating at
the same rate as objects fall to the ground on Earth. To an observer inside the room in space,
an object that he releases would appear to be accelerating downward, just as if he was standing

25
in a stationary room on Earth. It would be impossible, we are told, to tell the difference between
the two and so Einstein postulated that the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal and
hence an accelerated frame of reference with no gravitational field was equivalent to an inertial
frame of reference in a gravitational field.

Now, perhaps at this stage, now that you have the conceptual tools to do so, you are thinking,
well hang on, there is a way to tell the difference. Try it.

We can begin of course with the point of force on the room in space, at the rocket boosters. We
can assert a force there forcing the room upwards. We can see that if the velocity was constant,
the forces on the room would be perfectly balanced and objects would simply float but as it is
not constant, the man in the room and any objects are forced downwards in the opposite
direction of the accelerating force. An equal but opposite force, which physicists call the inertial
mass.

We can also separate out the facts of perception and the facts of reality. The facts of perception
are that the man in the room in space cannot perceive whether he is in space or on Earth. The
objects he drops fall the same. The facts of reality are that an observer with a telescope on
Earth can see that there are rocket boosters attached to the room, the point of force. Even if we
can’t see the rocket boosters, if we get in our spaceships or space ploughs, we can assert that
another force is required on the top of the room to slow the acceleration, in which case the man
and the contents of the room would be thrusted upwards to the top of the room. If the same
force were applied to the room on the ground on earth, it would not impart any force on the man
or the contents.

So we can quite easily verify mechanically that the room in space is accelerating upwards. The
relative equivalence of both rooms does not exist in nature, it only exists in our perception.

On the subject of the inertial-gravitational field equivalence, it is interesting to note that the earth
does not always move at a constant velocity. Sometimes it speeds up, sometimes it slows
down, depending on it’s distance from the Sun, over the year. It moves at a maximum speed of
30.29 km/s and a minimum of 29.29, yet we here on Earth do not experience any acceleration
or deceleration force as we would in a gravitational field. Perhaps this is due to the small
changes of velocity involved occurring as they do over a long time period. If you accelerated in a
car from 29 km/h to 30 over a period of 10 hours of driving, you would hardly notice. The
problem then is that Einstein's equivalence principle, based as it is on facts of perception, is only
valid at high rates of acceleration over short periods of time where it is perceptible and therefore
is not generally equivalent.

26
Facts of Perception and Facts of Reality

I think most people will understand the difference between facts of perception and facts of
reality and so I will not bore readers with a detailed explanation. Suffice to say that the sun
rotating around Earth is a fact of perception, the inherent colours in an object is a fact of
perception, the apparent bending of objects in water is a fact of perception, the fixed position of
a rainbow in the sky is a fact of perception, the retrograde motion of Mars is a fact of perception.
Facts of perception therefore are not necessarily the same as facts of reality.

The inability to distinguish between standing inside a room accelerating in space and a room
fixed on the ground is a fact of perception. The fact of reality is that it is possible to verify the
difference between the two and even if it wasn’t it is not possible to fool nature in this regard.

Einstein next infers that the path of light would look curved to an observer in an accelerated
frame of reference. We can assert straight away that this is a fact of perception. Einstein
concludes from this fact of perception that the laws of physics must operate the same for all
frames of reference. But we know that this is not necessarily the case. You cannot always
assume that facts of perception are evidence of physical phenomena. The arches of rainbows
appear to form in a fixed position on the ground but they appear in different locations to different
observers and move if we try to get closer to them.

If I see a mirage in the road ahead, does that mean that what I am actually seeing is a pool of
water on the road? A person standing closer to the point on the road where I see the mirage
sees nothing. Which perception is valid or do the laws of physics apply the same for both? Is my
perception equivalent to a man actually standing by a pool of water ? The mirage is a fact of
perception while the pool of water is a fact of reality.

The fact of perception is not equivalent to the fact of reality in this case. The laws of physics are
operating completely differently in both situations and for me are giving a distorted picture of
objective reality.

If I look out at the horizon on the sea and see a straight flat surface all the way out, is my fact of
perception equivalent to the fact of reality that the surface of the earth is really curved? Do the
laws of physics apply equally for me, as it does to an astronaut in the ISS? It’s true that a curved
line is made up of small straight lines but we don’t say then that the earth is flat. Without
consciously categorising our thought process in any philosophical way, we have distinguished a
fact of perception, that the earth appears flat, from a fact of reality, that the earth is really
curved.

27
How then can the postulate that a straight line, such as the path of light, appearing curved in a
certain frame of reference have any validity ? Light indeed may be curved by gravity (but more
on that later) but it is not possible to make the leap from a fact of perception to a fact of reality in
this case, just as it is in the case of making a leap from straight lines on the sea to a flat earth
theory. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between the two.

Consider that the Sun is actually visible to us two minutes before actual sunrise and two
minutes after actual sunset due to a phenomenon known as atmospheric refraction. When a
measurement of the distance to the moon was first measured in 1752, the two french
astronomers had to adjust their angles to the moon to make an allowance for the refraction of
the light from the moon in the Earth’s atmosphere which therefore gave a false position for the
moon. In other words, they had to adjust the fact of perception to arrive at the fact of reality.
With Einstein's theories however, we have to adjust the facts of reality to suit the
different facts of perception. We are conducting science / philosophy inversely !

One could go on and on with more examples, such as the looming effect of ships on the
horizon, but I think I have made my point clear enough.

I said that light may be curved by stars, however, this creates a dilemma. One can talk about an
object that enters the gravitational field of a star. But at what point does it enter and at what
point does it leave? There is no limit on the inverse square law per se, the force of gravity is
very weak at large differences but there is theoretically still an attraction. A force imparted on a
body always results in a change in velocity. Kepler's second law means that with any graduation
in distance from a star, the velocity of a body in orbit changes. Which means that as a comet or
planet gets nearer to the sun it moves faster. So at the point when light enters a gravitational
field, it's velocity must increase. Therefore, if light is bent by gravity, it’s velocity would have to
increase, and exceed the speed of light limit. So Einstein’s theory about the curvature of light
contradicts his theory on the speed limit of the universe.

For those of a mathematical mind, the formula for velocity and distance in a gravitational field is
the inverse of the square root of the distance. This is two dimensions away from the inverse
squared formula - - the force of gravity is proportional to the inverse of the distance squared, a
direct force would be inverse to the distance, the velocity is proportional to the inverse of the
square root of the distance. So if you double the distance from the Sun, the velocity of the
orbiting body reduces by 30%. At a distance of one million times out, the velocity of the body
would reduce to 0.1%.

28
LIGHT IN MOTION

Light, regardless of what an accelerated viewer thinks he sees, as measured from it’s Point of
Force (or in this case source), will always move at speed c and in a straight line through empty
space (a vacuum) until it meets a medium at which point it slows down. It is when the light
source is within a body in motion that the real confusion begins. But why should this present a
problem ? The Sun, the ultimate source of light, moves around the Galaxy at 200km/s. We do
not say that the speed of light emitted from the Sun travels at 299,792,458 m/s plus 200km/s,
proving that it is also wrong to add the speed of the arrow to the speed of the train as we have
seen earlier. We instinctively know that the light being emitted is separate from the motions of
the Sun and in this case our instincts are correct.

An example often used today which presents an apparent confusion about the motion of light is
a train moving at half the speed of light with a headlight that emits light at the speed of light.
From the perspective of a person on the platform, the light coming from the headlight will be
moving at one and a half times the speed of light. First of all, let's go back to Point number 2 in
the summary above:

A body in motion will be a separate system to another connected or related body in

motion, if it has a separate point of force that enables it to move further through the
plane or medium than the other related body. It is not possible to add or subtract the
absolute motions of these bodies, as measured from their respective points of force, to
arrive at a new relative motion. The correct form for comparison is through ratios.

We can deduce from this that the headlight is the point of force for the light and therefore the
light from the headlight is a separate system to the train. We cannot add the speed of the light to
the speed of the train, though we can say that the speed of the light is travelling at twice the
speed of the train. Secondly, we now know that the apparent perspective of the person on the
platform is a Fact of Perception and this view must be separated from that which we are trying
to assert, the actual speed of the light in reality. Therefore, the light from the headlight is
moving at the speed of light, no different than if it was a projectile fired from a gun on the front of
the train. There is no mechanism whereby the train can impart a force on the light to push it
farther and faster through space. Rather, the motion of the train only changes the starting
position of the headlight, the same as if I walked from A to B with a torch and every ten feet
stopped and switched it on and then off again. At no point in my journey have I actually
increased the speed of the light. If I switch the torch on as I'm moving instead of when I stop, the
situation is still the same, the only difference is that the starting point of the light is continually
changing as I move. The two situations are the same, but are deceptive, because motion is
deceptive. And so the exact same applies to the train example.

29
We have now deduced another affirmation of motion -

When a moving body or source of motion B is attached to another moving body A, then the
starting position of that body B continually changes with the motion of body A.

The upshot of this is that Newtonian mechanics was wrong to begin with, but not in the way that
Einstein and Mach suggested. Rather than finding that the flaw lay with Newton’s basic ideas
on motion, which would have required re-thinking the basic concepts underlying it as I have
done, Einstein drew a completely different conclusion, namely that Newton’s concept of
absolute time and distance was wrong. Whilst Einstein’s work led to ingenious solutions, they
are rather fanciful. There is no such thing as time dilation or length contraction in nature,
concepts which solely rely on false facts of perception for their veracity.

The usual example given for time dilation goes as follows : Bob is standing on the train and
shines a torch to a mirror 5 feet away which reflects right back at him. From his perspective
(fact of perception) the light has travelled 10 feet. From the perspective of someone on the
platform, they see the light travelling diagonally, along a triangular path. Therefore, according to
the theory, the light has travelled further from the latter’s perceptive, and consequently they will
measure a longer time than Bob’s. This has become known as Einstein's Light on the train
Paradox.

Once again, there is no problem here and time has not changed for anyone. Let’s say instead
that Bob throws a ball in the air and catches it and in that time the train moves from A to B. The
ball has also moved from A to B, no different than if Bob had held the ball stationery. The only
difference is that when he throws the ball in the air it follows a different path. But it’s absolute
motion has remained the same in both scenarios, i.e. the speed of the train is also the absolute
speed of the ball regardless of whether the ball has independent motion or not and the ball’s
final position will be the same as a ball on the train not thrown in the air, thus proving my
postulation that you cannot add together absolute and relative (independent) motions. This fact
is not accepted by modern science who do not accept any notion of absolute motion and hence
the permanent state of confusion that science has been in since Einstein and Mach. The ball
can only truly move independently of the train if it is thrown from the window. So even when the
ball is thrown in a curved path on the train it does not progress any further in space than the
train itself. And therefore absolute time, distance and speed remains constant. Bob's
perspective is imperfect as he does not perceive the motion of the train and the other person’s
perspective is somewhat less imperfect. The latter sees the sideways arc of the ball’s motion but
may falsely perceive that the ball has moved further through space than Bob. The fact that the
ball lands right back in Bob’s hand proves that this is not the case.

Now let’s focus on the ball’s motions independently within its absolute motion. For this, we need
to go back to the forces at play here.

30
The ball experiences two forces, a forward force from the train pushing it from A to B and an
upwards force from Bob. The combination of these forces moves the ball along a parabolic or
curved path. These points of force prove that the curved path is the true path of the ball and not
Bob’s vertical path. Bob’s perception is completely false and ignorant of the actual motions at
play. The person on the platform has a more accurate perception and therefore when we
discard Bob’s fact of perception we can assert that there is no conflict of realities here, only a
conflict of perceptions - false vs true (this however is an over simplification as we shall see,
Bob’s perception is more accurate than at first examination).

In the light of this explanation, excuse the pun, there should also be no confusion about the light
reflecting off the mirror. The light travels along a triangular path in straight lines, it's absolute
sideways motion is equal to the train’s, but it's independent motion is the fixed speed of light.
The light is undergoing a forward motion and a perpendicular motion with different speeds. In
one sense the train is the slower perpendicular motion and we know from refraction that when
light bends sideways from its straight path it slows down. The forward motion of the light in the
direction of the mirror moves at the speed of light. So the light is carried in one direction at a
slower rate than in the other direction. At this point, I think you can understand that there are
once again two facts of perception involved and only one can be correct. The concept that both
facts of perception are valid at the same time is not a sound assumption for basing what follows,
namely that there is no absolute time or distance. Bob cannot perceive the sideways motion of
the light and therefore his perception cannot be equally valid to that of the person on the
platform. I could just stop there, but I must further refine my analysis.

I said further up that the absolute motion of the ball or the beam of light on the train, regardless
of their own independent (relative) motion, is that of the train’s. How do we reconcile this fact
with the actual and perceived triangular motion of the light ? At this point we have to break new
ground to reach completely new insights into motion, which unless I am mistaken, nobody has
discovered before. Let’s go right back to the beginning. Actually, it turns out that the triangular
path of the light is not correct either.

Let us say that Bob is standing still. He shines the torch at a stationery mirror 5 feet away. The
light travels 5 feet plus 5 feet back, a total of 10 feet. Now, let's go back to the ship. The ship
travels from A to B, a distance of 100 miles but then returns to A. What is the absolute motion
through space​ of the light or the ship ? The answer is zero. Both the light and the ship have
returned to their original starting position. It’s true they have travelled distances of 10 feet and
200 miles but they have not progressed any further than if they had remained where they were.
Descartes was correct when he said that motion is nothing more than the action by which a
body passes from one place to another. Moreover, I would state that this is the exact definition
of ​absolute motion.​ And if that same body passes from one place to another, then back again,
then it’s absolute motion is zero. Both the ship and the light experience a positive and a
negative (opposing) force, pushing them in one direction and then another, so net forces are
also zero. Likewise, with a ball bouncing off a wall.

31
Does the concept of absolute motion really sound as meaningless as it’s often made out to be
when we look at it this way ?

For the next step, suppose that both the starting position of Bob and the mirror changes.
Suppose that for the ship that the position of A and B changes and the sea in between, all
moving together as one. Suppose that when I throw a ball against a wall that both my starting
position and the wall’s position changes, together at the same time. The ball moves over and
back, a net absolute motion of zero. The only positive absolute motion of the ball is the
sideways motion. For the ship that returns to its starting point, let’s say A moves to C and B
moves to D. The absolute motion of the ship then is AC as it’s final position is C, not B.

So what of the light ? The forward motion of the light is cancelled out by the opposite motion
caused by the mirror. If the starting position of Bob moves 3 feet, then we can say that the
absolute motion of the light is 3 feet to the side. Although there is a triangular path of the light,
only the base of the triangle actually represents real absolute motion ​through space​.

So now we can truly see what is happening on the train. Suppose the train is moving in the west
direction. The arrows below show the three different viewpoints. Bob’s is the first one, he only
sees the light moving over and back in straight lines. Number 2 is what the person on the
platform sees - the light travelling in a diagonal triangular path. Number 3 represents the actual
absolute motion of the light that lies beyond anyone’s basic perception. The forward and
backward motion is irrelevant, and cancel each other out. The starting position of the light has
moved in tandem with the train’s motion and this is where the light ultimately ends up - the light
has moved west.

32
1.​↕
2.​↙↖

3.​ ↓​ ↑

⟵
We can discount the independent and relative forward motion of the light because it’s absolute
motion is no different than if the beam of light never left the torch in the first place. This is I admit
counter-intuitive but then again Einstein’s concept that time changes depending on the viewer is
even more so.

So in reality, both the perspectives of Bob and the person on the platform are false. Time has
progressed the same for both, because the light has absolutely progressed sideways at the
speed of the train for both. We can infer from this that there is a difference then between ​total
distance travelled​ and ​absolute motion​ and that the difference is dependent on the ​timeframe.
Within the timeframe of the ship travelling from A to B, the total distance and absolute motion
are the same. However, within the timeframe of the ship travelling from A to B and back again to
A, the total distance is 200 miles, whilst the absolute motion is zero. ​ I​ n the light example, the
timeframe is within the light’s forwards and backwards motion, but the only two perspectives
given are flawed relative perspectives rather than the perspective of an absolute viewer who
would only see the absolute motion due to the train.

So how does the speed of light manage to remain the same in these two time frames if there is
a difference between the total distance and absolute motion ? The solution is quite simple but

33
elusively so. Suppose the torch is not switched on but is on standby mode so that there is a
glow from it without producing a beam of light. The first observer (Bob) does not see the light
move at all. The speed of light for him is zero. For the second observer (on the platform) what
speed do they see the light move at ? They see the light move at the speed of the train i.e the
absolute speed just like everything else on the train, but they can also see that there is no beam
of light directed towards and reflected back from the mirror. So they will be able to reason that
there is no independent motion of the light. This motion of the train they will see as the
“​background motion​” and of no relevance to the actual independent speed of light. Now, when
the torch is switched on and a beam of light hits the mirror and is reflected back, how can it
suddenly be that this background motion is now taken as part of the independent and constant
speed of light, thereby resulting in the light exceeding the speed of light limit ? Which is what
Einstein infers and how he ends up concluding that time and distance is no longer absolute if
the speed of light must remain constant in all frames. Remember, that Einstein states that the
distance covered by the light beam is greater for the second observer and therefore if distance
and time are constant then the speed must be greater to enable the light to travel that greater
distance within the same time. It is now obvious when explained this way that the speed of light
remains constant for both observers. The “background” speed of the light must be discounted
from the independent speed of the light beam which travels the same speed in all frames and
for all observers. And so it follows that the distance the light actually travels is the same, the
extra distance that the second observer perceives is actually due to the train's motion and not
the beam of lights.

Einstein has confused the relative or perceived motion of the light with the independent motion
of the light which are not the same as part of the relative or perceived motion derives from the
absolute motion of the train. And Einstein refused to believe that the concept of absolute motion
had any real world meaning or could be verified in any way so he could not reason any
difference. Perhaps you are still confused yourself. A simple way to verify that I am right is to
throw a ball at your chin with a small amount of force. Enough so you can feel the impact. Now
do the same in a car travelling at constant speed of 70 or more mph with the same force. Do
you feel any greater impact? The independent motion of the ball has not changed even though it
has apparently travelled a greater distance.

Finally, and I think this will seal it that I'm correct, imagine that you walk over and back in a
room. Next you stand on a train in a carriage of the same width as the room, and do the same
thing. Did it require any extra force or energy to move on the train? Did you walk any further?
No. But you have progressed further in your destination from A to B because of the train's
motion. The person on the platform must separate these two motions but human perception
does not do this and reason does not do it even for mental giants like Einstein. I am possibly the
first to use reason to overcome our limited perception of motion.

Another way of looking at this is to discount all background motion. We do this every day.
Nobody counts the motion of the Earth when they throw a ball against a wall. That is because
everything including the ball, your body, the wall and the space in between move with the earth

34
at the same rate. It becomes clear then from this perspective that the only true independent
motion is the ball's forward and backward motion against the wall, the sideways motion of the
earth is irrelevant. The motion of the train in the light on the train Paradox is no different than the
earth's.

Therefore the person on the platform's perception must be discounted as false and with it the
whole basis for the theory of Relativity.

Energy Levels
After more reflection, the best way to think about this is in terms of energy level. The energy
level of a ball or a person moving on a moving train is the same as on the ground, you expend
the same amount of energy walking on a train as on the sidewalk. The energy level of the light
on the train does not change because it is moving on a train, it’s energy level remains the
same in a stationary body such as a room or on a moving body such as a train. If it doesn’t
use more energy then it cannot travel further ​independently.​ It is this fact that leads to
Einstein's second postulate that the speed of light must remain the same for all observers.

If man could travel on a comet, then he would expend no more energy than moving about on
Earth, but he would travel ​absolutely​ further than ever before.

35
BBC’S TIME TRAVEL EXPERIMENT

Brian Cox of BBC presented a slightly different version of Einstein's light on the train paradox.
They had Jim Al-Khalili sitting on a chair whilst lifting up and down a light source. Then one of
the crew pushed the chair left and right across the floor on tracks. There is no light beam as
such unlike in the train example - nowhere does a light beam hit a mirror and then be deflected
back, yet a slight of hand is played when Cox later presents it as such at the blackboard. The
only light beams involved are those that reach Jim and the audience from the light source.

All relevant motion that occurs during the clip is a combination of relative motion due to the
movement of Jim's arm and the absolute motion of the chair. The independent motion of the
light must be separated from this motion, that is, the light that reaches both Jim's and the
audience’s eyes. These light beams move at the speed of light at all times. They are emitted
perpendicular and outwards to and from Jim, while the sidewards and upwards / downwards
movement of the light source is entirely due to the chair and arm motion.

So as you can see, once we isolate the separate motions, that of the light beams and that of the
light source, we can very easily see through the fog of confusion. During the clip, Cox confuses
the light source with the beams of light emitting from it giving the false impression that it is the
light beam that is moving as a result of the moving chair, when in fact, it is the light source that
is moving. Cox says "the light took a kind of triangular path". While Einstein was referring to the
light beam on the train, Cox is talking about the light source. So the BBC presentation is in no
way comparable to Einstein's train example.

The triangular path that we see then is caused by the moving light source and it is this which
appears different to Jim’s (fact of perception) head camera view showing the vertical motion of
the light source. The beams of light emitted from it are at all times and for all observers moving
at fixed rates. Think of the light source as a machine gun, and the light beams as the bullets.
The bullets are moving at the same rates for everyone, the gun however is moving sidewards
and upwards. From the turret, the man pulling the trigger will see the upwards and downwards
motion of the gun but he will also perceive the sidewards motion as he moves across the face of
the targets opposite with the targets falling horizontally in a line like dominoes. Likewise, Jim
also sees the lights behind the audience moving horizontally. But even if he didn't, the light
beams would still be moving at the same rate for everyone.

Thus, there is no longer path for the light to travel in either case, the light beams, just like the
bullets, travel the same paths from all perspectives, and Cox’s conclusion that moving clocks
run slower is therefore false because his analysis is completely wrong. He failed to define
properly the components of his experiment and therefore drew completely incorrect conclusions.

36
Previously I wrote about the forces occurring when a car is braking or accelerating. Suppose
that when a car brakes, a torch that is switched on is thrown forwards by the opposing brake
force. Is it the light beam or the light source that experiences the force? It is of course the torch,
the light source. The light beam moves exactly as before, the only difference is it's starting
position changes as the torch moves through the air. The same happens with the Sun, the Sun
(the light source) moves through the Galaxy but this does not affect the speed of the light
emitted from it.

With the BBC clip, the starting position of the light beams are also continually moving but this
has no impact on the independent motion of the light beams themselves.

Therefore the speed of the light does not change with different observers, and neither of course
does the distance or the time measured. Appearances and facts of perception are not reality,
and the (absolute) motion of a light source is not relevant to the independent motion of the light
beam. The existence of this absolute motion does however prove that absolute space and time
must exist.

Which now brings me to the subject of Simultaneity.

SIMULTANEITY

The concept of Simultaneity is usually presented as a confusing essence of reality but in reality
is a misleading concoction of facts of perception with delayed information events that should
have led us back to the search for objective truth but instead has driven us down into a
relativistic quagmire. The concept is most often presented as two simultaneous lightning bolts
striking an unimaginably fast train at both ends. Note how the initial assumption is that the bolts
of lightning are simultaneous. Where does this come from? If simultaneity is so hard to verify,
why does the example lead with two simultaneous lightning bolts?

Could it be that we all inherently know that simultaneous events are quite easy to verify? The
force imparted by both bolts will be felt at the same time by a passenger on the train regardless
of when the light reaches them. Force itself is instantaneous. Once again, Einstein ignores force
and only examines the kinematical nature of moving bodies. This is not the everyday universe
we are all used to.

We are told that the distortions of space and time only occur when the body, in this case the
train, is moving at very fast speeds, near the speed of light. But why should this be so?

37
Suppose a spaceship is moving past Earth while another one is moving past Jupiter. Let's say
both are moving about 200mph, not very fast relatively speaking. The light from the sun will
reach the craft at Earth in 8 minutes, it will not reach the craft at Jupiter till about 35 minutes
later. The crafts will not agree on when the sun first appeared. Now suppose there are two suns,
one of them closer to Jupiter than Earth. The craft at Jupiter will see sun number two long
before sun number one. Both crafts will disagree on the simultaneous existence of both sun's.
Why should this present a problem? The fact of reality trumps both facts of perception. The fact
of reality in this case being the fact that both suns exist at the same time, simultaneously.
Nature owes no obligation to either craft to provide them with a true fact of perception.

Now, replace the suns with simultaneous flashes of lightning. The same logic applies, they will
both perceive the lightning bolts occurring at different times, and not simultaneously.

The important thing to note here is that the laws of physics are applying equally and remain
valid in these situations (although the facts of perceptions are not equivalent to reality). Time nor
distance has not altered, in fact, the opposite is the case - because time and distance remain
fixed in all situations, the light reaches different placed observers at different times. Now let's
say spacecraft 1 moves at near the speed of light. This is according to Einstein when things get
really weird. But what is the only difference? The craft will see Sun/lightning bolt no. 1 even
earlier and Sun/lightning bolt no 2 even later. Again the laws of physics have not altered. They
are entirely consistent in both situations. There is nothing puzzling or strange about what has
happened once you have a clear understanding of facts of perception and facts of reality. Facts
of perception are not equivalent to facts of reality and the distinct distance, motion and speed of
bodies all dictate when facts of perception occur i.e at what time for each observer. Once this is
clear in your mind, we can swiftly move on to Einstein's thought experiment.

We are once again back to Bob on the train. This time two lightning bolts strike either end of the
train just as the train passes the person on the platform. Bob perceives the bolt at the front of
the train as striking first whilst the person on the platform perceives both bolts as striking
simultaneously. Due to the concept of Time Dilation, time passes slower for Bob, the person on
the platform measures a lesser time for the train to pass than Bob does. Therefore, because the
speed of light is fixed for both, the person on the platform perceives the train to be shorter. This
is called length contraction.

We have already seen that Time Dilation does not occur as the light on the train does not
independently move a greater distance for the platform observer, it only ​appears​ to do so
because of the sideways train motion. Therefore, there can be no Length Contraction either,
which Einstein believed resulted from Time Dilation and a disagreement among observers on
simultaneous events.

What actually happens is much more simpler and less confusing. Bob experiences the force
from both bolts simultaneously. The light from the first bolt reaches his eyes just before the light
from the second bolt. This fact of perception gives him a false sense of lack of simultaneity

38
although the simultaneous impact from the forces probably would tell him differently. The light
from both bolts reaches the platform observer at the same time and they perceive the bolts as
acting simultaneously. It is precisely because Time and Distance are fixed in this case that both
observers perceive the event at different times, not because they are changing for each
observer. This is obvious in the case of the spaceships because of the great distances involved
but can be deceptive in the case of the train because the light has to travel far shorter distances.

The only variable for any simultaneous event is the position of the observers. Everything else is
fixed and absolute.

Now, suppose there is only one lightning bolt that strikes the back of the train with a great force,
with an impact sufficient to accelerate the train. Bob will be instantaneously thrown from the
train in the direction of the bolt. It may be the case that Bob will not perceive the light from the
bolt till he is out of his seat and flying in the air. The inherent force of the bolt is realised quicker
than the light can travel to poor Bob. Therefore, the force determines the time of an event, not
the light.

Returning to the two bolts then, if we take a birds eye view, and stand in the clouds, then if the
electrostatic forces that created the two lightning bolts occurred at the same time, then the bolts
are truly simultaneous. If two clocks in the clouds could be switched on by these same electric
forces, then they would synchronise perfectly.

SYNCHRONISATION OF CLOCKS

One of the consequences of simultaneity we are told is in the synchronisation of clocks.

Suppose a spaceship has two clocks at either end and a light bulb midway between them. The
clocks are activated by the light. A scientist on board observes the synchronisation of the clocks
as the rocket flies past Earth at 0.95c. We are told that a person on Earth observes that the
clocks are not synchronised because the clock at the rear of the spaceship is moving towards
the light whilst the clock at the front is receding away from the light.

As with the light on the train paradox, we must establish the independent motion of the light, the
fact of reality rather than the fact of perception.

We must use what we have already learned, which I hope is quite a lot, to bring to bear the
more enlightened concepts of motion outlined in this book to the puzzle at hand.

First of all, the light that has been emitted from the light source is a part of the system of motion
of the ship and remains so. This means that the absolute motion of the light (and every other
body on the ship) is equal to the motion of the ship i.e 0.95c. However, the light has

39
independent motion which we know is c in either direction, one going in the direction of the
motion of the ship (light no. 1) and the other in the opposite direction (light no. 2).

The motion of the clocks in both cases is cancelled out by the absolute motion of the light
because they are the same motion. Just as with the light on the train paradox dealt with earlier,
the sideways motion of the ship can be ignored. This seems counter intuitive to our limited
perceptions. Surely, the clock at the rear approaches light beam no.2 thus shortening the
distance?

Suppose you are on a ship, at the halfway mark, and you run towards the back of the ship,
moving faster than the ship. Will you reach the back quicker than if you ran to the front? Of
course not. You will have to use the same force and cover the same distance in both cases.
Why ? Because any gain you make from the advancing rear of the ship is offset by the motion of
the ship (your absolute motion), acting in the opposition direction to your independent motion.
The rear of the ship and your position on the ship at any given time move in unison meaning
that you also lose ground as the rear advances. This is a universal law of the universe, there is
no gain without loss. The only way the rear of the ship could advance towards you and the
distance thus shortened is if it was part of an extension on the ship that could be drawn in and
out, like an extending arm. So it follows that the only gain in distance terms you make is that
due to the distance you cover independently.

Now back to the light on the spaceship. The clocks and the light source move in unison as does
all the space and bodies contained therein. Therefore as light no.2 moves towards the clock, it
is also receding from it, through no independent motion of its own, but from the motion of the
ship. This receding absolute motion cancels out the advancing motion of the clock which we
falsely perceive as reducing the distance that the light has to travel.

As for light no.1, as it also remains part of the same system of motion as the ship, it too has
motion separate from its own independent motion, but this time in the direction of the ship's
motion. This aids its advance towards the clock but is offset by the receding of the clock at the
same rate. Therefore, as with light no. 2, there is a cancelling out of the perceived change in
distance it has to travel, and all that remains is the light's own independent motion, c, and
distance it has to travel, equal to half of the length of the ship*.

If a is the distance the spaceship travels due to it’s absolute motion, then light no.1 travels D/2 +
a - a and light no.2 travels D/2 - a +a. Both of these a's are then cancelled out. Thus, we are left
with :

D/2 = c x T

Where D is the length of the ship.

40
In effect, the light beams act exactly the same as if in a stationary room with the same setup.
The clocks will synchronise at exactly the same time and for all observers. Hence there is no
paradox at all.

Now, some will doubt that a light beam or any body not directly connected to a ship or train will
be affected by the motion of the ship or train. If you sit in a car travelling at constant velocity and
throw a ball upwards, does the ball hit you in the face as the car moves forwards? No. The ball
will move forward in tandem with the car and land back in your hand, with the same
independent vertical motion as if it were thrown upwards in a room. The sideways motion of the
car is a constant for all bodies in the car whether on a seat or hanging in the air. We saw this
earlier with the light on the train. If this were not the case, you would have to throw the ball
forwards as well as upwards, to catch it.

This effect is strangely very like gravity, no body can escape it even if it is not directly touching
the moving object, unless it escapes the system of motion completely (the ball is thrown out the
window). However, it differs from gravity, in that the effects of gravity reduce with distance.

This concept is well known to physicists who refer to it as the law of inertia. It is therefore very
puzzling as to why the theory that simultaneity is relative, which ignores the inertial effects of
bodies including light within a system of motion, has been so well accepted as a theory.

A further problem with simultaneity is it involves a mechanical process, that of the switching on
of a clock and there can be no disagreement on a mechanical process, either the switch on the
clock is on or it is off. Either the light switch in your room is on or off. The cooker in your kitchen
is either on or off. The ignition in your car is either on or off. Your relationship with your girlfriend
is either on or off. So this indicates by itself that something is very wrong with the relativity of
simultaneity theory and that Einstein and his followers have made a conceptual error
somewhere.

In this case the switching on of the clocks depends on the independent motion of the light,
which I have established above, and this is another reason why both clocks must switch on at
the same time for all observers. This is the conceptual error that has been made, the concept of
relative motion along with the rejection of absolute motion fails to explain the underlying reality
of motion whereas the understanding of absolute motion and the concept of independent motion
better explains reality.

Finally, if you are still not convinced I am right, consider this. Suppose the clock at the rear is on
a conveyor belt that moves at 0.95c. As soon as Light No.2 is emitted from the light source, the
conveyor belt is switched on by the scientist and the clock advances to meet the light. Now it is
certain that the distance is shortened for Light No.2, as it would be in a stationery room. So
where the position of the clock is fixed, as in the spaceship example, there can be no
equivalence whatsoever with a clock on a moving conveyor belt and therefore the distance
cannot shorten in the former.

41
*​I had originally written here that it is the changing starting position of the light, i.e. the light bulb,
that is the relevant factor here. Due to the motion of the spaceship, the bulb moves away from
the light beam, thereby increasing the distance that the light has to travel, at exactly the same
rate that the clock at the rear of the ship advances, thus shortening the distance. Both these
changes in distance cancel each other out leaving only half the length of the ship that the light
beam has to travel at speed c. There is some truth in this, however, it’s not as simple as that.
Not only does the light bulb move away from the light, the light itself moves in the same
direction as the light bulb moves, at of course the exact same rate. If this inertial movement did
not occur, the light could travel to the other side much quicker than in a stationary room of the
same size. If you put a clock on a conveyor belt and run against the motion of the belt towards
the clock, you will reach the clock much quicker than on a surface without the conveyor belt. If I
am wrong, then throwing a ball up in the air in a moving car and catching it would not be so
simple. And even Diego Maradona could not do keepy-uppys on a moving trailer without this
effect.

THE SPECIAL CASE OF LIGHT ?

It was Maxwell who first described an electromagnetic wave, such as light, as a positive
feedback loop of moving electric fields creating moving magnetic fields creating yet more
moving electric fields and so on - a self propagating wave. From the equations he had derived
(known as Maxwell’s equations), he was able to arrive at a formula for the velocity of this wave -
inversely proportional to the square root of the constants of permeability and permittivity of free
space for an electric and magnetic field. Interestingly, this velocity formula is suspiciously similar
to the velocity of an orbiting body described in this book - inversely proportional to the square
root of the change in distance. But that’s for another book.

So, it is this process which produces an electromagnetic wave such as light. When Maxwell
proved this by calculating the speed of light independently of all previous experimental proofs,
and arriving at the same result - 299,792 km/s, it was one of mankind’s greatest strokes of
genius. However, since then, the basic concept of what Maxwell discovered has been partly
misunderstood. I’m going to repeat the above sentence again.

It is this process which produces an electromagnetic wave such as light (the self
propagating wave).

Now, drop a stone into a small pool of water. A ripple is formed and spreads out over the whole
pool, in a similar self propagating way.

42
The processes which form an electromagnetic wave such as light or a ripple in a pool of water
are independent processes​. This is the part that physicists since Maxwell have apparently
misunderstood. What do I mean by an independent process?

If I place the pool of water in a container and place it on a train moving at constant velocity and
drop the stone into it, the ripple will form exactly the same as if I did the same thing on the
ground, with the same wave pattern, frequency and wavelength.

It is an independent process independent of any other related motion including absolute motion.

Likewise, if an electromagnetic wave forms on a moving train, it forms independently, and it’s
velocity will be independent of the velocity of the train.

There is no special case of light, special case implying that because c equals a certain fixed
number, that the laws of physics must change in certain circumstances where it appears that c
would have to change otherwise. The laws of physics cannot change because x = 100
suddenly becomes x = 299,792. The number is only the magnitude and implies nothing about
the nature of a physical law.

I have referred to the independent motion of light previously in this book but now I hope you
understand the full meaning of that phrase. Once you understand this, there is no need
whatsoever for the special case of light as Einstein postulated. The speed of light is fixed
because the process that results in the emission of light is independent of other motion. It is a
mechanical process and cannot vary between observers.

And so it is with other EMFs. If I am on a train I must move a magnet myself through a coil to
produce an induced current - I must move the magnet with my hand. The motion of the train
does not induce a current in the coil. Therefore, when I push the magnet through the coil, the
current induced is exactly the same as if I did the same thing on the ground.

With this knowledge in mind we can now refine the Laws of physics. A process that produces an
emf, such as light, depends only on the independent motion of the components of that process.

This brings me to a very important law of motion. When a body has independent motion within
an absolute moving system, the combined motions of all parts of the system will equal the
independent motion of the body. This is different to the law I postulated early on in the book,
when I was discussing the addition of absolute and relative motions which only applied when
moving from place A to B as with a ship or train (although I will show that the two laws are
actually linked). This law of independent motion is only relevant when we want to look at moving
bodies on that ship or train. If the body moves in the same direction as the ship, the additional
motion imparted by the ship is offset by the front of the ship receding away from it at the same
rate (and vice versa). If I throw a stone at a man running away from me, the combined velocity

43
will be less than if he is standing still or moving towards me, where the combined velocity will be
greater.

If the body is moving in the opposite direction of the ship, the reduced motion will also be offset
by the rear of the ship advancing at the same rate. The combined motion in both cases will be
the independent motion of the body. This applies equally to light as anything else.

This neatly brings me back to the arrow and the train. As the arrow is shot out of the window it is
moving at 100mph plus the speed of the train at 100mph, but the latter is cancelled out by the
receding of the window at the same velocity, so that the net velocity is 100mph, i.e. the
independent motion of the arrow. Which confirms my initial assumptions in the first part of the
book, that the arrow does not move at a relative velocity of 200mph and the net force on the
arrow is the point of force on the bow.

However, after the arrow has left the train and hits a stationary target on the ground, it would
initially appear that it hits the target at 200 mph because the target is not receding from the
arrow like the window on the train is. This is where things get a bit strange. As the train moves,
all of the space in the train moves with it, all of the objects and the air and crucially the space
itself. When you throw a ball vertically in the air on a train, the ball moves upwards and
sideways, unlike on the ground where it only moves upwards. The space the ball moves in is
being pushed forwards at the same rate as you are sitting on the seat. Hence, you catch the ball
when it falls.

So once the arrow leaves the train, and it's system of motion, it no longer is travelling in moving
space (except that of the earth's). The arrow and the target share the same space and therefore
the motion of the train no longer impacts on the arrow. It hits the target then with its own
independent velocity, at 100 mph.

We can also now see that with Einstein's light on the train paradox, the sideways motion of the
light was due to the movement of the space that the light inhabited. This further verifies my
conclusions that the light is not independently moving sideways in a zig zag fashion, it is the
train and the space in the train that is in motion and every object therein. Myself, sitting on a
seat in this moving space, am not moving independently.

Experiments testing for differences in these different types of motion fail because they are not
comparing like with like. Comparing independent motion with a combination of independent and
absolute motion is like comparing two different units or separate entities. If you see a
disturbance in water, where a ripple and a wave meet, you will intuitively understand that the
ripple is caused by the stone you threw in, the wave was already on the water caused let's say
by the wind. Two different motions.

This brings me to the Michelson Morley experiment, where it was assumed that adding together
velocities was the normal everyday experience and therefore the light travelling in the direction

44
of the moving earth would arrive at the detector earlier, creating a different interference pattern.
My Theory of Independent Motion would have predicted no difference as both beams of light
move independently of the motion of the earth just as they do on a train and just as ripples in a
water tank move the same on a train as on the ground. What the experiment did prove is that
the space on or in earth moves with the earth (and everything contained within), a space
suspiciously like the ether they supposedly disproved, but not necessarily the ether. There is no
gain or loss of velocity due to this moving space, which cancels out as explained previously, as
the adjoining space also moves at the same rate. What Michelson and Morley measured was
the independent speed of light for both beams, the same as if they measured light beams on a
train with the sideways motion of the light beams being impossible to record from their
perspective on the train. An irony, given that the experiment which Einstein built his theory of
relativity on was actually carried out from a frame of reference that could not have measured the
impact from the sideways motion of the earth anyway.

By way of analogy, imagine once again the tank of water on a train and an experiment to
measure the ripples on the surface of the water produced from throwing pebbles into the tank.
Surely, the scientists reason, the ripples that travel in the direction of the train will arrive at the
detector earlier than the ripples moving in the opposite direction. It surely doesn't require much
explanation on my part to understand that, even under Einstein’s own ideas about frames of
reference, that they could never detect any difference in the speed of the waves. And in my
view, under no perspective or frame of reference whatsoever, could any difference ever be
detected or anything other than the independent motion of the waves, which is the same in all
directions.

NEWTON’S BUCKET EXPERIMENT

Isaac Newton, like me, also believed in the concept of absolute space and motion. He carried
out his bucket experiment to prove it. Hanging a bucket from a rope, he twisted the cord and
then pushed the rope outwards while the rope unwinded. While at rest, he noticed that the
surface of the water was flat, but when in motion the surface became curved at the sides of the
bucket. He reasoned that since the relative motion between the water and the sides of the
bucket is the same at the beginning, when at rest, and at the end, when in motion, it cannot be
the relative motion that accounts for the difference in the shape of the surface. The motion of
the water does not depend on the surroundings but only on the motion of the bucket and the
space within the bucket. “​The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are the
forces of receding from the axis of circular motion​” Newton writes. Mach argued that it was not
possible to abandon the rest of the world, that both the flat surface and the curved surface of the
water were at rest / in motion relative to the fixed stars. However it is Mach that is ignoring the
real world, the world of forces.

45
Newton wrote “​true motion suffers always some change from any force impressed upon the
moving body, but relative motion does not necessarily undergo any change by such forces​". A
force is required to set the bucket in motion. That force which is imparted on the bucket is then
imparted on the water and this forces the water out of the bucket. Since the force is small in this
case, the water only climbs on the edges nearby.

Because the motion of the water is entirely due to the initial force on the bucket, there is no
independent motion of the water. The water and the bucket are part of the same system of
motion, just as a man sitting on a train seat is a part of the train's system of motion. The motion
of the water is wholly due to the absolute motion of the bucket. Acting counter to the force
pushing the water out is the tendency of the water to remain in the vessel because all of the
space within the vessel moves with the vessel.

It just so happens that in this case the absolute motion over time is equal to zero because the
bucket returns to the same location in space after the rope has unwinded. Should the rope
loosen and the bucket land three feet away, it will have moved absolutely through space. For
the relativists, it would have moved through space relative to the fixed position of the rope,
which is true, but this still infers that it has moved from point A to point B and therefore moved
absolutely. If this motion occurred on a moving train, the bucket could be said to have moved
independently and its absolute motion would be equal to the train’s.

Mach was also wrong in that if the experiment was conducted in space with no visible fixed
stars, the surface of the bucket would still curve because it is the force acting on the bucket that
determines the resulting motion and not the ambient bodies. The genius of Newton’s bucket
experiment is that it preempts the relativist movement spearheaded by Mach, Lorenz and
Einstein two hundred years later. Furthermore, if the experiment were carried out on a train
moving at constant velocity the surface of the water would curve exactly the same. So it matters
not which frame of reference the experiment is conducted, the surface will curve proving that
Newton was correct in asserting that absolute motion is a valid concept in our world.

Newton understood the concept of absolute motion because his philosophy incorporated forces
unlike Mach or Einstein. Newton's world is a world of forces that is the world we inhabit, whilst
Einstein's world is a world of perceptions. But we cannot see a force, magnets repel and attract
without any visible interaction. Drive on a motorway, and wait for a large lorry to overtake you,
you will be pushed off the road without the lorry touching your car or any visible interaction.
Gravity pulls on objects without any visible interaction. Wind exerts a force not visible to us, only
the effects of these forces are visible. Perception only has a limited use in formulating theories
on force and motion and too often philosophy and physicists have given it too much credence.

46
DESCARTES AND TIME
What motion is, taking the term in its common use. But motion (viz., local, for I can
conceive no other kind of motion, and therefore I do not think we ought to suppose there
is any other in nature), in the ordinary sense of the term, ​is nothing more than the
action by which a body passes from one place to another - Rene Descartes.

We came across French philosopher, Descartes, earlier in the book when I referred to a
Cartesian grid, which originates with Descartes, who formulated the use of the Cartesian plane
along with x/y co-ordinates in mathematics. Issac Newton eventually dispensed with Descartes'
inferior notion of vortex theory and replaced it with his theory of gravitation (influenced by
Hooke, Hailey, Wren and others) but he retained elements of his theory of motion as we shall
see.

This above definition of motion by Descartes is very similar to my earlier definition although in
light of the new insights reached in this book I will now refine it - ​an object moving through
space from point A to B over time within which many independent motions of bodies can
occur​. The conflicting theories of absolute and relative motion do not actually serve us well as
explanations of motion, and have more often than not led us astray. The concept of absolute
and independent motion in my view provides a much better picture of reality. An object can
move faster independently than absolutely but over time the object will move with absolute
motion.

The words place and space signify nothing really different from body which is said to be
in place, but merely designate its magnitude, figure, and situation among other bodies.
For it is necessary, in order to determine this situation, to regard certain other bodies
which we consider as immovable; and, according as we look to different bodies, we may
see that the same thing at the same time does and does not change place. For example,
when a vessel is being carried out to sea, a person sitting at the stern may be said to
remain always in one place, if we look to the parts of the vessel, since with respect to
these he preserves the same situation; and on the other hand, if regard be had to the
neighbouring shores, the same person will seem to be perpetually changing place,
seeing he is constantly receding from one shore and approaching another. And besides,
if we suppose that the earth moves, and that it makes precisely as much way from west
to east as the vessel from east to west, we will again say that the person at the stern
does not change his place, because this place will be determined by certain immovable
points which we imagine to be in the heavens. But if at length we are persuaded that
there are no points really immovable in the universe, as will hereafter be shown to be
probable, we will thence conclude that nothing has a permanent place unless in so far as
it is fixed by our thought [Rene Descartes, The Principles of Philosophy, 1644].

47
We can see from the above, that as with his first law of motion, Newton derived quite a few of
his ideas on motion from Descartes (although he placed more emphasis on force). His ship
analogy that we saw at the beginning of the book was taken almost directly from him. What
have we learned that we can apply to Descartes’ vessel on the sea ? First and most importantly
is to realize that all of the varying perspectives he refers to are Facts of Perception. These types
of facts are not a philosophically sound basis for discerning reality. So we must make everyone
blind, the person in the ship, the person on the shore, the person in the stars.

Secondly, the vessel presumably has its own Point of Force. If it doesn’t then it is moving along
with a medium (which has a force of its own). Since sufficient force creates motion, we can
deduce that the ship is in motion. Like the water in Newton’s bucket, we can also verify the
change in the shape of the sail when the wind blows through it or the change in shape of the
water surface near the propellor. Since a second ship of similar size but with a greater force
can overtake our first ship, we can deduce that it will reach destination B in less time. Therefore,
we have no need to plead to the certain immovable points in the universe to understand that the
second ship's absolute motion is greater. We can also deduce that any independent motion of
bodies on either ship will not make any difference to this fact and can therefore be completely
discounted. The absolute motion of all bodies on the ship will be equal to the ship’s absolute
motion.

Now if the ship were to anchor in the sea, remaining stationary and with no force acting on it,
then it could be said that its absolute motion is equal to that of the Earth’s. When the ship does
have a force acting on it, it could also be said that the ship is moving with its own independent
motion and so defining either does depend on which portion of absolute space we are arbitrarily
measuring. Adding together these different types of motion does not give a true picture of reality
over time. If the first ship moves at 20 units and the second at 30, then ​over time,​ a man on the
first ship moving at 20 in the same direction as the ship does not move at 40, he moves at 20,
the absolute motion of the ship.

Therefore, in a universe like ours that does not allow instantaneous actions, i.e. where motion is
constrained by time, absolute motion must exist.

A body will always move with absolute motion until the body escapes that system of motion. A
rocket moves the same absolutely at rest as it does after lift off until it leaves the earth's orbit,
that is, at the speed of the earth and moves through the same space as the earth. By the time it
exits the earth, its starting position will have changed. Time then is the constraint of the
universe, otherwise the rocket's independent motion would be equal to its absolute motion and
the rocket would instantly arrive in outer space. With the existence of time, absolute and
independent motion must necessarily be different and separate to each other and furthermore,
absolute space must exist as a dimension as a direct consequence of the existence of
the time constraint​.

48
It is only in absolute space where time can be experienced.

MYTHBUSTERS

Independent motion can cancel out absolute motion and this leads to a lot of confusion because
the mathematics looks straightforward. Mythbusters carried out an excellent demonstration of
this with a vehicle moving at 60mph and a cannon firing a ball in the opposite direction at 60
mph (available to view on YouTube). The ball exits the system of motion of the truck very
quickly and this also adds to the confusion but if we watch it in slow motion we can very easily
see what happens. ​For every unit that the ball moves forwards (away from the truck) , it moves 
one unit backwards (towards the truck) so it never progresses beyond its starting position . 
Therefore, its independent forward motion is cancelled out by its absolute backward motion and 
hence it drops to the ground once it exits the cannon. If there was no absolute motion it would 
simply fire out of the cannon as normal. It appears to fire out of the cannon from the 
perspective of the camera on the truck because the starting position of the ball, at the cannon, 
has moved away from the ball at 60mph (although the ball has never moved from that starting 
​ ow, if the vehicle were moving at near the speed of light, and it fired a light beam 
position). ​ N
instead of a cannonball, the light would also stop at its starting position and what you would see 
is the light moving backwards from that starting position to the source on the vehicle so that 
from the frame of reference on the truck it would appear that the light was shooting outwards. 
Once again, there is nothing special about light.  
 

CARL SAGAN AND HIS BIKE IMAGE

 
There is another video available on YouTube featuring Carl Sagan where he explains the speed 
of light constant. Once again, he assumes that the Descartes/Newton method of adding 
together different velocities is Gospel. Whilst in the case of Mythbusters, adding together the 
velocities gave the correct answer, it does not mean that the underlying theory behind the 
mathematics is correct. Carl is cycling on a bike and has to swerve to avoid a collision with a 
horse but he makes the case that the speed of light from his image should in theory be added to 
his velocity on the bike and that therefore an onlooker would see the image of Carl on the bike 
arrive before the horse. In reality, we know this does not happen - the event is seen 
simultaneously by all observers.   
 
To overcome this paradox, Carl tells us that science invented a new Golden Rule - ​Thou shalt not 
add my speed to the speed of light​ and that​ ​all scientific experiments had thus far proved this​. 
What science should have done was to reassess the original assumption about adding together 
velocities. The source of the light, in this case the reflected light from Carl on the bike, is in a 

49
continual state of motion. For every additional unit of velocity relating to the bike that is added 
to the speed of light, there is an equal offsetting unit as a result of the new starting position of 
the light, at the bike. So whatever you add on in terms of velocity from the bike is already 
accounted for in terms of the adjusted position in space of the bike and you have in effect 
double counted units of velocity.  
 
Time is crucial to understanding this. Remember the bike moves in units per second just like the 
speed of light.  
 
The additional velocity from the bike added to the speed of light of Carl’s moving image is 
negated by the fact that the starting position of the light has moved forwards at the same rate 
and within the same time as this additional velocity and so the observer does not see an image 
arriving earlier for this very reason. Any advance in space of the image of the bike is offset by 
the advancing bike itself moving in the same space at the same rate ​within the same period of 
time​. The correct mathematics in this case for the moving image of Carl on the bike is V + c - V 
= C , where V equals the speed of the bike and c is the speed of light. 
 
The state of Motion, then, is the same as the state of Rest, as any additional velocities arising 
from the motion are offset by the starting position changing at the same rate as the additional 
velocity within the same period of time. In this way, there is a conservation of the state of rest 
in motion. 

DESCARTES’ FACTS OF PERCEPTION

And just as we have remarked above that the same thing may be said to change and not
to change place at the same time, so also we may say that the same thing is at the same
time moved and not moved. Thus, for example, a person seated in a vessel which is
setting sail, thinks he is in motion if he look to the shore that he has left, and consider it
as fixed; but not if he regard the ship itself, among the parts of which he preserves
always the same situation. M ​ oreover, because we are accustomed to suppose that
there is no motion without action, and that in rest there is the cessation of action,
the person thus seated is more properly said to be at rest than in motion, seeing
he is not conscious of being in action [Descartes] .

We can see that everything that Descartes is referring to here has nothing to do with facts of
reality but only the facts of perception. It was what the person is conscious of that matters
whereas we should be looking at what is actually happening beneath the surface of our
perception. It is incredible to think that this basic philosophical mistake has lasted for 400 years
into the present day. Of course, the action or the force can be tested and furthermore the seated
person can see the wind in the sails or the steam rising from the engine and the curved state of
the water as the ship moves through it just like the water in Newton's vessel changes shape with

50
motion so there are facts of perception available other than the one noted by Descartes that do
provide an insight into the reality.

We can very easily prove that the person seated on the ship is not at rest by having another
person walk past him on the same ship. Whilst they will have independent motion and within a
certain timeframe appear to move faster than the seated person, both passengers will arrive at
destination B at the same time when the ship docks at B. Therefore, both passengers must
have moved at the same speed over the longer period of time it took the vessel to move from A
to B.

This motion can be called their absolute motion.

XXV. What motion is properly so called. But if, instead of occupying ourselves with that
which has no foundation, unless in ordinary usage, we desire to know what ought to be
understood by motion according to the truth of the thing, we may say, in order to give it a
determinate nature, that it is THE TRANSPORTING OF ONE PART OF MATTER OR
OF ONE BODY FROM THE VICINITY OF THOSE BODIES THAT ARE IN IMMEDIATE
CONTACT WITH IT, OR WHICH WE REGARD AS AT REST, to the vicinity of other
bodies. B​ y a body as a part of matter, I understand all that which is transferred
together, although it be perhaps composed of several parts, which in themselves
have other motions;​ and I say that it is the transporting and not the force or action
which transports, with the view of showing that motion is always in the movable thing,
not in that which moves; for it seems to me that we are not accustomed to distinguish
these two things with sufficient accuracy. Further, I understand that it is a mode of the
movable thing, and not a substance, just as figure is a property of the thing figured, and
repose of that which is at rest [Descartes].

Here, Descartes recognises the separate and independent motion of bodies that are all bound
to the same system of motion, i.e that all have the same absolute motion although he would not
have agreed with my interpretation. He also correctly states that it is a mode of the body and not
a substance but then strangely asserts that the force does not transport but rather its the
transporting which transports. This puts a focus on the transporting and the motion itself rather
than on the forces that cause the motion. Newton corrected this and brought the focus back on
force but it was Euler who really dealt the killer blow to Descartes' kinematical approach.

51
EULER’S ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME

Leonhard Euler​ argued that absolute space and time are real things that existed beyond our
imaginations. During the 1700s, there was an intellectual split between the metaphysicians who
believed that the notions of absolute space and time were imaginary and the mathematicians
who believed they were real. Today, it seems that split is now over and most philosophers and
physicists believe the notion to be imaginary. Euler believed that both assertions are in fact
equivalent, in that a body at rest stays in the same position with respect to absolute space and
also retains the same relationship with respect to other bodies in its surroundings. So when
body A and its neighbours B,C,D and E are at rest, both the absolute and relativist rule can be
applied equally.

The situation changes when a force is introduced however, so if body A is floating in water, it
will no longer be surrounded by the same particles when the water begins to flow since it is
struck by different particles emanating from the point of force. Therefore, Euler says, without this
force the body would remain at rest in flowing water as it does in still water, and thus a body
struck by a force does not follow the bodies that immediately surround it. According to the
relativists, a body will tend to maintain it's position in respect of it's surroundings regardless of
whether it is at rest or in motion.

From this it follows that what is called position in mechanics does not allow the
explanation offered by metaphysics which claims that position is nothing but the
relationship of the body with respect to other bodies that surround it. To this property of
bodies, by which they try to conserve in their state as much rest as movement, we shall
give the name inertia. Therefore this inertia, as we have just seen, does not relate to
neighboring bodies, but it is quite certain that it conforms to the idea of position that the
mathematicians consider real and the metaphysicians regard as imaginary [Euler].

We can expound Euler’s water analogy further by looking at what happens in air. Let us say that
air particles were differently coloured so that the eye could discern different air particles. What
happens when wind hits a branch on a tree ? The relativists (or the metaphysicians as Euler
calls them) would say that the position of the branch can only be established with respect to the
surrounding air particles. But when the wind blows, a different configuration of air particles with
different colours will surround the branch. According to the relativists, the branch will have then
changed position, but we know this not to be the case, as it is still connected to the same tree
and the tree has maintained its position in absolute space.

In both cases, with the wind and the water, the surrounding particles have changed because of
an external force but the difference is that the floating body has changed position while the

52
branch has not. Thus, the relativist / metaphysical view is not a consistent or reliable method of
determining position. We know that it will take a certain amount of energy, resulting in a large
force, to move the tree whereas for body A it will only take a very small force. Therefore, the
motion of an object can only be determined by reference to the force applied to it and the
magnitude of that force. It is this force that determines whether the body travels through
absolute space or not. The actual method for determining the position of a body in absolute
space is, as Euler rightly points out, much more difficult and mathematical than the simpler
relativist method (but that is not a weakness).

The notion of Descartes that it is the transporting and not the force that transports is therefore
not valid.

Most relativists will respond by claiming that reference can be made to far away surroundings
instead, such as the fixed stars in the sky. Euler responds by pointing out that this will not apply
for objects closer to the fixed stars and so we are simply transferring the same problem inherent
in the metaphysical argument to far away objects.

Euler also makes the valid point that Time is also real and objective, but it is in how we measure
time that is subjective, and this is what leads to confusion, which the relativists and
metaphysicians use as their basis for undermining our notion of Absolute Time. This in itself
makes a very simple but effective argument against Einstein’s notion of time. In the Light on the
Train paradox, the person on the platform apparently experiences time differently to Bob on the
train - isn’t this just another way of saying that they each measure time subjectively ? Therefore,
this has nothing to do with the actual concept of Absolute Time. It is akin to a house being sold
at an auction, one person might buy it for 100,000 pounds, another person ten years later might
buy it for a million pounds. Neither of these bids may have any similarity to the actual price of
the house, based on the materials and labour that went into building it. Or if two hunters are
looking at a rabbit 500 yards away, one might say it’s 600 yards while the other might say it’s
400.

Descartes also believed that mathematics and logic could be doubted. He theorised that there
might be an invisible demon who continuously hypnotises us into thinking that our mathematics
is correct. But if this were the case, very few of us would be able to do basic things like eat our
dinner or bake a cake. Most of us instinctively understand ratios - we like a small portion of
sauce and pepper relative to the amount of meat and vegetables on our plate. If we had 90%
sauce and pepper and only 10% meat and veg, we could barely eat our dinner. Our sense of
taste proves that Descartes demon does not exist and our innate sense of proportion from
preparing dinner to making tea or brewing beer and to baking a cake proves that ratios do exist.
And ratios are the real world representation of mathematics as discussed earlier.

53
Zeno’s Paradox - A Simple Solution
The ancient Greek Zeno posed a number of paradoxes on motion. In the dichotomy or the
racetrack, Zeno argued that a runner will never reach the stationary goal line on a straight
racetrack. The reason is that the runner must first reach half the distance to the goal, but when
there he must still cross half the remaining distance to the goal, but having done that the runner
must cover half of the new remainder, and so on. If the goal is one meter away, the runner must
cover a distance of 1/2 meter, then 1/4 meter, then 1/8 meter, and so on ad infinitum. The
runner cannot reach the final goal, says Zeno. There is also another version which states the
inverse, namely that the runner cannot even take his first step because the first step can be
infinitely divided up.

Aristotle, in Physics, said of the Dichotomy that it is possible for a runner to come in contact with
a potentially infinite number of things in a finite time provided the time intervals become shorter
and shorter. Aristotle said Zeno assumed this was impossible, and that is one of his errors in the
Dichotomy. However, it was not until the invention of calculus that a mathematical theory, which
enabled the computation of the finite amount of time, could provide the detailed solution and it is
calculus that provides the detailed Standard Solution to Zeno’s Paradox today. The sum of the
series of path lengths or segments ½+¼+⅛+.... converges to 1 and not infinity.

A far simpler solution could in fact have resolved the Paradox even without calculus. The runner
is also composed of infinite units, so infinity divided by infinity equals 1. This means the runner
does not have infinite space to run but has absolute space of equal parts in the same proportion
to the runner’s sprint that sums to 1. At each point that his foot touches the ground, the same
infinite units that Zeno recognises in the ground exist in the athlete’s foot and therefore the
distance to be covered at each step is no longer Zeno’s infinitesimal decimal units but one unit.
This allows the runner to complete the distance to the finish line within a certain amount of time
depending on his sprint. Infinities are cancelled out by the existence of infinities within both the
runner and the track.

Infinity is the background noise to the universe, it is the commonality for everything. Zeno went
wrong because he attributed infinitesimal qualities to only one part of matter and space and then
set up a false Dichotomy. Because it is a commonality, the infinite quality of matter can be
ignored, and what remains is the proportional relationship between objects and between objects
and space i.e. ratios.

So the answer to Zeno’s Paradox is that infinity also lies within the athlete's foot.

54
CONCLUSION - ENTER SIGNOR GALILEO
Prior to Newton and Descartes, was of course Galileo, who’s works I have so far not dealt with.
His 1632 book “​Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems”​ remains the greatest book
of all time on motion and from it sprang forth the well that the other two drew their main ideas
from. So what better way to finish this book than with a brief discussion of Galileo’s book and
how it relates to this one.

What we now know as Newton’s First Law on Motion is first formulated there when the
characters in the book speak about bodies moving with a motion that is “boundless, that is
perpetual” when all “accidental impediments” (i.e friction) are removed.

Dialogue ​harmonizes very well with my own book and once again I must point out that it’s tenets
have been misunderstood or lost in the modern age. In an analogy about shooting an arrow
from a carriage, Galileo shows that the speed of the carriage imparted on the arrow is cancelled
out by the distance the carriage travels within the time it takes for the arrow to hit it’s target.
Therefore, the arrow hits the target at the exact same speed regardless of which direction it is
fired from, whether it’s in the same direction as the carriage’s motion or in the opposite direction,
provided it is fired with the same force in both cases. The “​course of the carriage itself regulates
the flight of the arrow​” so that any additional or retarding motions imparted by the carriage are
themselves cancelled out by the motion of the carriage.

Then there is the analogy about shooting a cannon east and west with the same force. Both
balls will land the same distance away from the cannon even though the earth is moving
towards the east. Once again, the earth’s motion is cancelled out. Both the ball and the cannon
are subject to the same motion of the earth. When a cannonball is shot straight up, the ball does
not veer away in one direction, it lands back at the cannon. Whether the ball lies at rest inside
the cannon, or is moving out of the cannon, the motion of the earth imparted on the ball is the
same and as a result can be discounted. This is one of Galileo’s greatest discoveries :

“Just so, it ought to be that if the natural tendency of the earth were to go around its
center in twenty-four hours, each of its particles would also have an inherent and natural
inclination not to stand still but to follow that same course.”

This inclination not only applies to bodies on the Earth but to ships or any moving vehicle. In the
analogy where a rock is dropped from the mast of a ship, it is found that the rock lands at the
foot of the mast, regardless of whether the ship is moving or not. This proves that the motion of
the ship is common not just to the mast, the sailors and all of the cargo on-board but also to the
rock even when it is falling through the air from the ship’s mast.

55
Hence, Galileo would have recognised no paradox or special case when it came to light.
Perhaps that is why Einstein, whilst recognising his great contributions and courage, was
somewhat disparaging of Galileo in the foreword to the 1952 edition, for relying too much on the
deductive method and not fully grasping the significance of the law of inertia. However, in
defence of Galileo, reality is complex and an over reliance on either the empirical method or the
deductive method, will lead great minds astray. Galileo instinctively understood that a
combination of both methods in the right proportion would lead to the truth. Applying his
conclusions on inertia to the clocks on a spaceship paradox, as I have done, one can see that
both light beams would strike the clocks at the same time for all observers as they would be
inclined to move with the spaceship even after being emitted from the light source in the middle.
The Relativity of Simultaneity theory then does not stand scrutiny under Galileo’s understanding
of inertia which I believe to be the correct one. No matter what thought experiment you can
come up with, the combination of a body's independent and absolute motion will ensure that
events will be simultaneous for all observers.

Galileo also does not support the assumption that one can always simply add or subtract
velocities of two different motions that a body might be subject to. The cannonball fires the
same distance in all directions regardless of whether the Earth moves or not as does the arrow
on the moving carriage. Indeed, he only refers to the addition and subtraction of velocities to
present the prevailing and incorrect view of the day. Yet, today we have the concept of Galilean
transformations where velocities are automatically added together.

Perhaps the greatest advance in thought on motion in Dialogue is the idea of separate motions
combining as one :

But if the earth is turning, the ball inside the cannon has also the diurnal motion, so that
the impulse of firing being superimposed on this, it travels with two motions from the
breech to the mouth of the piece, the compounding of which results in the motion made
by the center of gravity of the ball being a slanting line.

What I have done in this book is simply to further refine this analysis (although I wasn’t aware of
Galileo’s separation of motions at the time) so that one part is the independent motion and the
other absolute motion. This new Theory of Independent Motion allows us to re-assess the
paradoxes presented by Einstein and find alternative solutions outside of the Theory of
Relativity. It also supports a re-evaluation of the notion of absolute motion and time as
understood prior to the 20th Century.

For a video demonstration of theories from this book, see here on YouTube:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOheBnuC8Us&t=137s

56