Introduction

Caution

Please do not decide whether this book is beyond your understanding until you have finished reading the next six to ten pages. It will get easier as you get used to it.

This book was not designed for just the professionals. The language is mostly on the high school level and, with a web browser and a little patience, many junior-high school students should be able to understand the basic principles. Occasionally, throughout the book, you will find euphemisms (synonyms) in parentheses that might be of assistance to some younger readers.

Most of the technical terms and the new words that are introduced in this tome (scholarly book) are also contained in the glossary at the end of the book. You might want to make a copy of those pages to reduce the number of times you will find it necessary to turn to the back. The use of a tablet or smart phone might simplify the copying process.

Getting Started

The excitement of the many new discoveries to be revealed in Motion Unification does not really start until Chapter 2. However, most readers will have some difficulty navigating the details of some of these revelations without at least tolerable understanding of many of the definitions that are presented in this Introduction.

You will soon discover that there are many new terms defined for the first time in this book that cannot be looked up anywhere else (yet). You will also discover that the concepts presented in this book are not completely independent.

Many concepts carry over to (are assumed in) succeeding concepts. However, anyone who becomes bored with the definitions of the Introduction might be justified in taking a precipitous peek at Chapter 2 before returning to this Introduction whenever vocabulary bolstering seems prudent.

Any adult reader only wishing to learn how gravity works might be able to understand enough about chapters 1, 2, and 7 to catch the essence of it. If that goes well, then chapter 9 will fill in some of the details and provide some of the consequences.

Natural Behavior

Before Sir Isaac Newton "discovered" gravity (back in the late 17th century), the falling of objects had been considered well understood. Falling was the natural behavior of objects that were dropped or otherwise unsupported. Newton's fortuitous discovery of gravity illustrates a fundamental truth that is not fully appreciated even today.

Any "natural behavior" that is "well understood" should be considered with suspicion until "how it works" is also well understood.

Lest we be too judgmental of a supposed early lack of criticality, we might now ask ourselves, for example, "How does momentum work?" Is this just natural behavior that is well understood? Isn't anyone curious about how it works? Will future generations of physicists criticize our lack of criticality?

Some might say that physics has always been about how things work physically. Before we can talk about "how it works," we must first establish our intended meaning of these three words. In physics, we tend to use formulas to simplify our explanations of how various components of a system are related. When all of the formulas of a particular system are understood, we can say that we know how the system works because we can make accurate predictions.

However, there are levels of knowledge. We will condense this down to three levels. The first level requires observations to explain what the system does. The second level requires mathematical formulas to model the variables. The third level requires a theory that physically explains, as simply as possible, the principles of how the system works. Equations and formulas will be used only when system relations must be established before the system can be analyzed.

In the case at hand, we do have formulas for momentum that allow us to make accurate predictions. However, in this case there is nothing to explain. Momentum is just natural behavior that is well understood! Right ...? Let's exercise some critical thinking.

Example of "How It Works"

Level 1: It is possible for a child to observe an old but still functioning mechanical alarm clock for a few days to discover what it does.

Level 2: By studying the clock and experimenting with all of its knobs and dials (or reading the directions taped to the back if all else fails), it is possible for a young mathematician to model the relationships between the input and the output. Models can often be revised and restated in many ways until it is generally agreed that it has been expressed as simply as possible.

Level 3: However, if clock making technology were ever lost, it might require a theoretical physicist (or in this case an experienced mechanic or engineer) to take the clock apart. In a process called reverse engineering, it might be possible to gain a real understanding (theory ... not conjecture) of the internal operation of this particular clock that physically confirms or alters the mathematical models and discerns the simplest theory of how it is supposed to work.

There are at least four terms that, depending on the source of the term, imply a variety of credence. In this book, these terms will be understood as follows.

Conjecture – an opinion or guess in the form of an argument.

Premise – a conjecture, hypothesis, or assertion generally given to establish an exact statement of some argument to be studied with a goal of possibly deriving a valid proof of that argument.

Theory – an argument or inference that has passed every test and is generally accepted as true or valid. (An argument is "valid" if the premises support the conclusion. In other words, in a valid argument, premises, if shown to be true, would guarantee a true conclusion.)

Narrative – the theory with the highest Occam and "strongest heart" (to be defined soon) that has been fortified by an understanding of how it works. This will generally be the theory that is most acceptable as an understanding of how it works.

There will be many examples of these technical terms used throughout this book.

The Narrative Principle

While occasional fluctuations may be difficult to fathom, standard behavior occurs for a physical reason that can be expressed as a "narrative

Reasoning

Mathematics is a critical tool for analyzing data and synthesizing formulas that can be used for predicting future behavior. Many mathematical and scientific discoveries start with one or more premises and follow the patterns or implications logically, using previously established definitions, theorems, or physical laws to prove conclusions directly. This type of reasoning is called "deductive" reasoning.

"Inductive" reasoning, however, uses strong evidence such as numerous independent examples and known behavior to support its premise(s). Following the implications of such evidence, a narrative can sometimes be developed that supports the conclusion(s) of the argument.

Any narrative that leads to or supports another independently valid narrative tends to establish both as significant. The greater the supported connections, the greater the significance of all related concepts. You will find this "Motion Unification" filled with mutually supporting narratives.

The greatest danger with inductive reasoning is the possibility of applying a chain of evidence based furtively on one or more of the argument's premises or even on its conclusion to support an assumed premise of the argument. This is called circular reasoning. As you will discover in this book, critical examples of circular reasoning still exist in our modern understanding of physics.

Circular reasoning is sometimes tolerated because it has the same feel as reinforcing narratives. There is a huge difference, however. Circular reasoning actually thwarts reinforcement.

When two competing concepts are developed inductively, the simpler concept with the fewest and least restrictive requirements is generally considered loftier due partially to its greater simplicity, but primarily to its wider ((less restricted) field of relevance and consequently superior reinforcing evidence.

Regal Science

Any thinking that is given a pass on understanding the narrative of how it works will be called "regal science" because of its treatment as fiat. The circumstances may be unusual, but the consequences of regal thinking are illustrated by the fable, The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen.

One of the best-known physics examples of regal science is Aristotle's geocentric solar system from the 4 century B.C. The strategy was simple enough and the original model was as simple as possible. It was, in fact simpler than today's models. However, the heart of the narrative was weak. As the data became more precise, the necessary adjustments to the model became more complicated.

Four hundred years ago, Johannes Kepler announced his empirical laws (discovered experimentally) that accurately described motions of the planets. Three hundred years ago, Sir Isaac Newton improved Kepler's laws and provided many of the mathematical formulas that allow predictions concerning gravitational orbits. Last century, Albert Einstein hypothesized that gravity travels between massive objects in gravitation "waves."

Yet, from the field of physics, the mystery of gravitation, where it comes from, and how it works has eluded us until now. Even hypothesizing a "God particle" has not helped. Currently, the realm of regal science includes (but is not limited to) Newton's three laws of motion, momentum, angular momentum, precession, cosmic flatness, cosmic acceleration, mass, gravitation, and constant C.

Establishing these narratives will allow several long-standing physics mysteries to be finally put to rest in this book. The physical validation of narratives will include the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, fabric of space, dark energy, dark matter, vacuum energy, isothermal energy, the equivalence principal, two new equivalence principles, gravitation waves, (similar) precession waves and nielucion waves, and many others.

A new concept called "orbitar precession," or "nielucion" will also be revealed for the first time even as it hides in plain sight. (Note that the spelling and pronunciation of "orbitar" is similar to that of "linear" and "angular." Nielucion will be revealed and discussed in "Gravitation Concept.")

In the inductive presentations of this Motion Unification, there will be numerous instances where multiple options are possible. The development of narratives will be used to explain how particular options work.

Systems with physical narratives will generally be elevated above the ones with only mathematical formulas for justification. As stated earlier, the option with the fewest and simplest assumptions allows the broadest application and greatest reinforcement. This option will be called "the simplest Occam." Hypotheses are always assumed true. Inductive arguments, as this presentation must be, are seldom supported by deductive proof but by the strength and productivity of their inductive conclusions and by the simplicity and paucity (divined by Occam's razor) of their assumptions.

Such arguments must be revised or abandoned if contradictions occur or predicted consequences do not. "Occam's law of parsimony" is named in honor of Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

ITL?ITL will be using Occam's razor to develop a deeper, more insightful version of physics that might be called "narrative physics." This realm of physics will seek to understand the physical reality beyond the mathematical models of many well-known phenomenon.

Absolute Motion

Having found the simplest system that works in a particular setting does not generally entitle us to say that this must be how nature behaves in all settings and that all contrarian theory is incorrect.

For example, since the geocentric (earth centered) model of the solar system has been replaced with the heliocentric (sun centered) model, it is sometimes suggested that we no longer say (or even think) that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The "correct view" is that the earth rotates counter-clockwise making it appear from the surface of the earth that the sun rises and sets.

Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the importance of appearances. In this regard, many social scientists and PhDs insist, "perception is reality."

Wisdom leads us to the discovery that we must often choose between two or more different versions of the "reality" of our perception. Perception without understanding leads to "certainty" which leads to dogma. Perception with understanding leads to the confidence that gives us the courage to question our perceptions, reevaluate our "reality," and broaden our horizons.

The Simplest Occam Depends On the Point of View

When studying the solar system, the heliocentric model is usually simplest. When discussing the mechanics of lunar or other earth satellite motion, the geocentric model is usually simplest. When considering travel through the universe, both of these models could become inadequate and some galactic model might be simplest.

The Strongest Heart

There is a problem with making the simplest Occam our ultimate goal for the improvement of theory. Sometimes, in order to work, seemingly simple concepts must be construed to form logical systems that are more complicated than necessary. Constant c and relative motion seem simple. Even space warp seems simple at first.

Consider the circular orbits of Aristotle's geocentric solar system. The elliptical orbits of today's models are more complicated, but the circular orbits combined with the necessary (perspective) adjustments make Aristotle's model far more complicated than necessary.

It is important that the "core" of a logical system be simple and that all parts are expressible in terms of that context. It is even more important that the "heart" of the system be fathomable. The heart of a logical system can be judged by the simplicity of its narratives.

At the end of the day, the best physical theories will be those with the "strongest heart." MU will always attempt to use narratives to differentiate those systems with strongest heart.

Principium Axioma (The Axiomatic Principle)

Every branch of mathematics, science, and most other logical systems are "axiomatic systems ." To emphasize our definition of axiomatic systems (below), we will call an axiomatic system an "asys" for short. This might be pronounced "aces". The plural would be spelled "asies," and pronounced, "a-sea's."

To study any asys, the assumptions made determine the asys being studied as well as the point of view of the study. These assumptions are sometimes called postulates or axioms. Any distinction between these two words is no longer considered important.

Each of the three solar system models mentioned above can produce a valid asys within the framework of the corresponding system. No asies and no theorems proven in any asys have any validity when considered within any alternative asys unless reproved within that alternative setting. In BLD?BLD, this crucially important property of all asies will be christened "principium axioma" to distinguish references to it from references to other general properties of asies and references to specific asies and to specific properties of specific asies.

The Motron Hypothesis (MH)

Photons are considered by particle physicists to be elementary particles called gauge bosons that seem to have these three qualities.

• They have no charge and no mass.

• Each is a quantum of light.

• They are the carriers of the electromagnetic force.

Many physicists add a fourth property.

• Photons travel through (the fabric of) space with particulate-wave motion.

* A gauge boson is a "massless" particle that carries one of the fundamental interactions (forces).

The Motron Hypothesis posits that a photon is a "q-pon," a warpon with quantum mass, (see below) that travels through the 3-Dimensional fabric of space in a linear analogy to the way a stylized ocean wave travels across the surface of the ocean.

The energy of ocean waves travels from one molecule to the next. The molecules of the ocean only travel up and down (or around in a relatively small vertical circle near the surface) as the energy passes.

This is the definitive behavior of wave motion. We might reference this version of wave motion as, "the notion of ocean motion."