Relativistic Mass


Rference: A New Explanation of Inertia

Does the mass of an object become infinite as it approaches the speed of light? That seems to be the conclusion derived from the Theory of Relativity. But can mass exist at the speed of light?

Looking at the wave-particle duality, it appears that a particle would turn more into a wave as it approaches the speed of light. For example, an electron is likely to turn into a gamma ray photon as it approaches the speed of light.

This is in the nature of inertia. Inertia as mass seems to be due to rotational spin. Inertia as frequency seems to be due to oscillations. Rotational spin seems to localize motion. Oscillations seem to let motion flow.

For motion to attain the speed of light it has to be more in the nature of oscillations than in the nature of spin. In other words, it has to be more of frequency than mass; or more of a wave than a particle.

As a particle with mass approaches the speed of light it becomes more of a wave with a frequency.

From Wikipedia:

“At high speeds, and especially near the speed of light, inertial mass can be determined by measuring the magnetic field strength and the curvature of the path of an electrically-charged mass such as an electron.”

We are measuring the inertial mass indirectly near the speed of light. It is more of a mathematical interpretation.

When we consider mass of an object to become infinite as it approaches the speed of light, we are making a mathematical projection. It is not something real.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 8:30 AM

    Mathematics has limitations.

    The Foundations of Mathematics

    Classical mathematics is based on the idea that “point” and “unit” are absolute. It does not serve the relativistic and quantum mechanics too well.



    • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 8:35 AM

      We need new, relativistic mathematics.


      • Chris Thompson  On January 8, 2015 at 1:03 AM

        “When we consider mass of an object to become infinite as it approaches the speed of light, we are making a mathematical projection. It is not something real.”

        These are bold statements. Please say more about why you think extant mathematics fails QM. Possibly an example of an inconsistency, your pick.


        • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 7:26 AM

          Well, the bold statement was already there that “mass of an object becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light,” It is an expectation that is not consistent with any observation.

          A mathematical formulation may work in a certain range, but it is always suspect when it is way out of its range. An example of this is Newton’s mathematics that works beautifully but only in the classical range where relativity of space and time do not matter.

          The theory of relativity increases the range of phyiscs to high speeds, where the relativity of space and time becomes significant. But it still is limited to a matter-centric frame of reference. I was surprised to find from the Wikipedia article that an energy-centric frame of reference has been considered, but there is no further reference to it.



        • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 7:34 AM

          Regarding extant mathematics failing QM, I wrote about it in Wave-Particle Duality

          The starting point is always experimental observations that cannot be fully explained by existing theories. We apply mathematics as a tool to explain those observations, which then helps us come up with a new theory.

          In QM we have applied mathematics, but no new theory has followed that can be tested. Please see

          The Quantum Phenomenon


      • Chris Thompson  On January 8, 2015 at 1:06 AM

        Are you in a new territory of thinking or do other physicists also experience failures in the math? Why is the math (a language) failing rather than our view, our ability to divine?


        • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 7:45 AM

          As I mentioned above, mathematics provides us with an array of tools. There are very many mathematical tools. Each mathematical tool operates in a specific range where it ensures consistency of abstraction.

          If the mathematical tool fits then one can say if this is the case then that may also be possible. This leads to a hypothesis which may then be checked in the real world. We do not know how well the mathematical tool fits until the hypothesis is successful and we then have a theory. But even then a theory has a limited range in which it works.

          I would not call it a failure of math. The failure may lie in finding the right mathematical tool that fits the experimental observations. A lot of thought experimentation is necessary to find the right mathematical tool. Please see

          The Scientific Method & Humanities


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 1:25 PM

    From Wikipedia:

    “In an inertial frame all the observers in uniform (non-accelerating) motion will observe the same laws of physics. However observers in another inertial frame can make a simple, and intuitively obvious, transformation (the Galilean transformation), to convert their observations. Thus, an observer from outside the moving train could deduce that the dropped ball within the carriage fell vertically downwards.”

    All inertial frames that we consider are based on mass. In these frames of references mass as innate force is very localized. Each object can be approximated by a center of mass. As mass of an object increases, its inertia could be considerd as being increasingly “centered.” It is centered to the degree it is harder to move.

    Inertial frames based on mass will then differ based on the “centeredness” of inertia. These variations are, however, does not seem to be taken into account in relativistic mechanics.

    In the inertial frames based on energy, there is no mass. the innate force of inertia is expressed through frequency. It cannot be approximated by a “center.” Inertia is rather fluid and dispersed in these frames. There is not much “centeredness.”

    Inertial frames based on energy will then differ based on the “dispersion” of inertia. These variation are visible in the frequency spectrum but they are not recognized as inertia.

    We need a universal frame of reference that can account for the variations in inertial frames in terms of “dispersion” and “centeredness” of inertia.



  • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 3:14 PM

    From Wikipedia:

    “However, in reference frames which are experiencing acceleration (non-inertial reference frames), objects appear to be affected by fictitious forces. For example, if the railway carriage were accelerating, the ball would not fall vertically within the carriage but would appear to an observer to be deflected because the carriage and the ball would not be traveling at the same speed while the ball was falling. Other examples of fictitious forces occur in rotating frames such as the earth. For example, a missile at the North Pole could be aimed directly at a location and fired southwards. An observer would see it apparently deflected away from its target by a force (the Coriolis force) but in reality the southerly target has moved because earth has rotated while the missile is in flight. Because the earth is rotating, a useful inertial frame of reference is defined by the stars, which only move imperceptibly during most observations.The law of inertia is also known as Isaac Newton’s first law of motion.”

    In the Universal frame of reference, the variations in internal inertial characteristics as well external forces shall be treated as a function of motion measured as frequency, and not as speed.



  • MarkNR  On January 7, 2015 at 4:35 PM

    Relativity works both ways. Having a fictional drive that could accelerate your vessel as long as you wanted, you could go to 3/4 light and then say “Hmmm,
    Scottie, give me another 3/4 light. You would then be going 1.5 light and arrive at your destination in less than the time it would normally take light to get there. The odd thing that would happen is that the universe speeded up so that you apparently never exceeded light. To them.

    The fact that as one accelerates the whole universe speeds up and loses mass, is just as valid and true as the fact that one cannot get to light speed and becomes heavier and heavier as you try.

    Accelerate to 10x light and you can go 100 light years in 10 years, as far as YOU are concerned. Relativity is just as valid backwards as forwards.


    • vinaire  On January 7, 2015 at 5:28 PM

      We are operating in the universe in a frame of reference defined by matter. We are made up of mass and we live on a massive planet. We are surrounded by all kinds of masses. This is the frame of reference we are used to.

      When we talk about moving at the speed of light, we are using universal matter as our inertial frame of reference. Relative to each other, none of these masses are moving anywhere close to the speed of light. Light has its own frame of reference. From the perspective of light all matter in universe is practically frozen.

      So, we have two very different types of motion. Let’s call them matter-centric and energy-centric. There are gradients of speeds within these two very different types of motions. But they are not appreciable when we compare these two motions.

      No matter how much you accelerate your vessel made up of matter it cannot exceed matter-centric motion, If you base your perception of motion on speed it simply would not work because you cannot treat speed in absolute terms. Neither space nor time is absolute.

      A better measure of motion is frequency. In case of matter we can use de Broglie frequency. Achieving “speed of light” for real would mean changing the frequency to that of light.

      You can never achieve the speed of light with matter because it ties you to matter-centric motion.

      Speed of light can only be achieved as energy because then you are not tied to matter-centric motion.


      • MarkNR  On January 7, 2015 at 9:20 PM

        Any time you are not being accelerated, you are at rest in your own time and space. Accelerate to 3/4 light, shut down your engines, and you are at rest, not moving at all. Strangely, the universe is moving past you at a different rate, but that is their problem. you are at rest. you have neither gained or lost any energy or mass. Others think you have, but that is their opinion. Your opinion is just as valid and true as theirs.
        When you are “falling” toward a body at the speed of gravity, you are at rest, unmoving. When you stand on that body, such as earth, you are being accelerated upward at one G. You are not at rest. You are being accelerated upward all your life, except when you jump off a wall or ladder or something.
        Mass collects space at a rate of acceleration force, a slightly different type of motion than Newton conceived of. Mass collects space at a rate of force, not as an amount of quantity. If someone is dropped off a crane, he will accelerate at a certain rate. If you are dropped off a crane at a lower level, a second later, he will travel at a greater speed than you, so it could be erroneously conceived that the rate that gravity is collecting his space is greater than the rate that it is collecting your space (since you are at rest in the space you occupy). But no, your space is being collected at the same rate of force as his. Mass collects space at a rate of force, not at a rate of quantity or of distance. It is an additional type of motion than in the classic sense.


        • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 10:33 AM

          MarkNR: “Any time you are not being accelerated, you are at rest in your own time and space.”

          Please define “rest”. Thank you.


        • MarkNR  On January 8, 2015 at 3:03 PM

          At rest.
          Excellent question. To define this would also define the difference in moving ‘through’ space and moving ‘with’ space. This can get a bit mind bending when you define everything as being in its own space. If you are in a vessel traveling at some speed (relative to other objects) and the vessel is not accelerating, you could be said to be at rest in your own space. But what about that sandwich on the table across the room. It is also at rest in its own space. But are you and the sandwich in the same space, or are each in its own separate space, paralleling each other. Would your space be defined as the interior of the vessel?
          I would define ‘rest’ as no force of motion being applied. This would include falling toward a massive body. The space you are within is being accelerated toward the body, relative to other bodies, but the mass or objects within that space, no force is being applied. Therefore the mass or object is at rest.
          If you hold a pebble in your hand and release it. Does the pebble move? (Discounting any other forces such as magnetism) If not, you are at rest.


        • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 6:08 PM

          Are you defining space here as a “viewpoint of dimension”? What definition of space are you using?


        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 1:27 AM

          First motion/rest, now space. Please, let me get a wet towel to cool my head. I usually write in general principles but you are forcing specifics out of me.

          A viewpoint of dimension would be the oldest, most basic idea about it, but a lot has happened since then. It’s not as simple as it once was. Many rules and laws have been attached and enforced and applied to what makes up MEST. Since this universe is made up of both physical and spiritual principles, it cannot be defined in purely physical terms.

          Space could be looked at as the distance between particles, massive or energetic. But that only defines one dimension. Multiple particles, or assigned points, could describe 3 dimensions but that again is incomplete. Motion is also an integral part of space, of which time is an integral part. So in these two simple questions, I am asked to define all of physics. A monumental task, but perhaps I can add a piece or two from time to time.

          From my viewpoint (choice of words) observation is also necessary for space and time and all the other mechanics to become apparent, or even exist. But what if no individual happens to be looking? Well, as you may recall, from my outlook, all of existence resides within theta, or the cosmic consciousness, or whatever phrase you wish to use. Each individual is like one set of eyes of theta. These sets of eyes have, over time and interaction, become as separate individuals, but their source is still the original potential. Every particle, every movement, every area is also a part of theta. The real gradient is how much attention is given, how much attention is drawn by each point, each mile, each life, each viewpoint.

          In this universe, space is simply distance. It is not elastic, nor warped or compressed. It is simply viewed differently from different angles, different velocities and at different times. But the viewpoint is not necessarily an individual thetan or whatever term is used. Every object, energy, and space is a viewpoint.

          You, Vinay, are doing an excellent job at ferreting out the postulates which make up the structure of this world we live in. These rules have been researched and refined and adopted over many billions or even trillions of our years. There was no such thing as inertia or light speed or valence shells until someone thought it up and said ‘Lets give it a try” The parameters in which we now operate provide a stable, predictable, useable area to interact. For the most part solid and durable. Yourself and many others are making great strides in finding out the particulars of MEST so that it can be more easily manipulated, made sevicable by us as humans. People like you have brought us tractors and cell phones, and we thank you. With my kiln press and frequency generator, I am also working in the same direction. I am exploring the relationship of emotion, frequency, wavelength and metallic bonds. Different elements do unusual things when alloyed, heated, and then cooled under extreme pressure when varying frequencies are applied. (50 to 150 thousand PSI, 900 to 4000 deg F.)

          But I am mainly searching for the original ideas that brought about these mechanics. I believe the original intentions will clarify the mechanics.
          Thank you for your attention.


        • vinaire  On January 9, 2015 at 8:57 AM

          Mark, I am trying to understand what you are saying. I do not understand your assertion that there is movement “with space.” How do you define “own space”? An object is made up atoms. Does each atom has its own space, and the space of the object is a combination of all those atomic spaces? Here you seem to be using some definition of space that is not clear to me.

          You are also defining “rest” as absence of acceleration and force, whereas, “rest” is usually defined as the absence of relative motion (as between an object and earth). This is also confusing to me. So, I cannot absorb your ideas because of the confusion in the language you are using.

          I try to understand your first sentence and first paragraph. If I don’t understand it then I know I shall not understand rest of your post either. Study tech matters to me. Even if you write in general principles, the language should be clear from the beginning when dealing with science.

          In your current post you said, “Motion is also an integral part of space, of which time is an integral part.” Can you explain that further?

          My view is that space and time are part of motion. Neither space nor time is absolute as shown by the Theory of Relativity. Please see

          What is Space-Time, Really?



        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 1:24 PM

          Thanks for your reply, Vin, I haven’t been writing to you enough lately. My writing skills are desiring, that is certain. With a professionally written article, there would be overview, review, discussion and re writing. I tend to put down my ideas as they come and throw them out for comment.

          Since MEST is both spiritual and physical in nature, as I said, it can be difficult to discuss in purely physical terms. I’ll try to clarify what I can.

          I was defining an object at rest as relative only to itself or to another object or observer that is in the same motion relative to the object or space.

          Any object which is not being affected by an outside force is behaving as though it is at rest. All rules and laws will apply as though it is at rest. This is the heart of relativity.

          But to define the observer is a much more difficult task and has been an ongoing effort for a hundred years now. It would be anything which has a position in space and time, or a position or trajectory, or anything which is considered or considers itself to have a position or trajectory. It would also be any considered position or trajectory, regardless if that position is occupied by a mass or energy. The consideration plays a part in it and is likely the primary component.

          The term “In it’s own space and time” is also an in’definite’ idea which makes it in’definable’ to some extent. The best I can say is it means what you want it to mean according to the circumstances of what you are talking about. If you are talking about a particle, it is the space the particle occupies. A man, the space the man occupies. Again, consideration plays a role.

          The idea of moving space is as much a metaphor as an actuality. It seems that space is more than just the absence of mass or energy, yet it’s definition must include mass/energy/time as an integrated system. Mass/energy in motion relative to other objects/energies, yet not being accelerated by any force, behave and exist as though they are at rest in space. Gravity throws a curve in this thought angle (pardon the joke) since objects are being accelerated relative to other objects, yet behave as though they are at rest. The Einstein way of looking at it is that the space is being accelerated while the object remains at rest in that space. This remains an idea, since space remains an undetectable substance, resistant to solid definitions.

          Hope this somewhat clarifies my thoughts to you, although this is not completely possible, since my thoughts are still in the process of being clarified.



        • vinaire  On January 9, 2015 at 4:29 PM

          Well, Mark, you are getting my honest comments to your ideas. Whether something is physical or spiritual in nature, the scientific method still applies. This is true even when one is dealing with thought experiments. The consistency of ideas with concepts being used must be shown. If concepts themselves are being distorted to express those ideas, then the whole exercise is fruitless. Please see

          The Scientific Method & Humanities

          You said, “I was defining an object at rest as relative only to itself or to another object or observer that is in the same motion relative to the object or space.” But a motion can be velocity, or it can be accelertaion. One is the derivative of another. It makes a big difference. I have a feeling that you are not understanding what I am saying. Sorry, I have to stop here.


        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 4:52 PM

          Hi Vin.
          Here is one point where we may differ in opinion, or perhaps in my understanding of how others view space and motion.

          You said: ” But a motion can be velocity, or it can be accelertaion. One is the derivative of another.”

          I disagree. Velocity, trajectory is ONLY apparent relative to other bodies, energies, or viewpoints. Acceleration can be apparent to the object being accelerated regardless and independent of others. It is related to velocity and can cause a change in relative velocity, but is not necessarily dependent upon, and an intertwined subset of velocity.

          I will take your suggestion and go over your posts on the scientific method again. Keep in mind that these are my observations and I am as much asking for explanations as I am offering them



        • vinaire  On January 9, 2015 at 7:56 PM

          Suppose a car is moving at a uniform speed of 40 mph.
          According to MarkNR – the car is at rest (zero acceleration)
          According to Vinay – the car is not at rest (uniform speed of 40 mph)


        • vinaire  On January 9, 2015 at 10:36 PM

          It is much better when one uses precise terminology such as “uniform motion” or “no acceleration” rather than the word “rest” which is ambiguous and can be misinterpreted.


        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 11:41 PM

          Car at 40 mph:
          For the sake of argument, I assume that you are discounting the force of the road pushing upward upon the car. You are speaking only about the velocity of the car moving forward, as though it were in space, not near a massive body.

          Yes, you are correct in your assessment of the difference in our viewpoint. A car coasting at 40 MPH will operate and follow all physical laws as though it is stationary, not moving, according to anyone or anything riding in, sitting on, or following beside the car. Put a radar gun in the back of the car and measure the front of the car and it will register 0 MPH. Whats more, anyone in or about the car may do tests on atomic particles and the tests will show that the particles are not in linear motion. The orbits will not be compressed, the velocity of orbits will not be slowed, the mass will not increase. According to the devices in or about the car.

          But Mark, that is not valid, the devices are moving with the car. That invalidates the test, according to my viewpoint.

          And that is exactly the error of thinking and exactly the concept I am pointing out.


          Any tests taken from inside the car which are directed toward the earth which you consider stationary, will show that the earth is slightly compressed, time is slightly altered, and EM radiation being emitted from the earth is slightly skewed in frequency due to the fact that the earth is moving at 40MPH, while you are not moving at all.

          Two persons or objects which reside on opposite sides of the universe which are moving away from each other at half the speed of light will behave as though they are stationary, according to anyone or any instruments residing on their respective planets. This law was put in place by necessity in order to orient and adjust persons and particles to the environment one is in regardless of distant environs traveling at physical relative speeds that are not normally encountered in normal day to day life.

          Both viewpoints are equally true and valid. That is the heart of the concept of relativity. It clicks with someone or it does not. This clearly states my viewpoint on the concept of relativity as related to velocity, acceleration, and time. The concept works equally whether you are standing on a planet observing a car, or if you are sitting in a car observing a planet. As with romance, size is overrated.



        • vinaire  On January 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM

          Mark, please see my response here:



        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 2:18 PM

          Time is also something which has evolved since its inception. It is not the same as when it was conceived. There was the intention or consideration or postulate, to exist. Immediately following or simultaneously, was the intent to continue to exist. Once there was the idea of experience and doingness, time became the compilation of events, of occurrence. One may have had or caused 10 events to occur during his existence. Some event is caused or occurs. One now and forevermore has 11 events in his ‘library’. Time is a process of addition and compilation.

          “An agreed upon rate of change” was a later consideration, devised for and applicable to physical universes. It is a secondary definition, yet has been made a near necessity in the phys. univ. But there are exceptions.

          There are sub atomic particles which come into existence and go out of existence spontaneously. Although they are in a state of changing position to at least some other particle, somewhere, they can be unchanging, unmoving relative to some particular particle or viewpoint. Yet their existence had duration according to that other particle or viewpoint. A beginning, an existence, and an end. Since time and space have been proven to be relative through observation, this apparently is an exception to the rule of change being a necessary component of time.

          Tying time and space and speed and oscillation together in an integrated system had an intent and purpose. It provides commonality of experience and communication. It orients one and all to the space and time one is in so that interaction can occur without confusion and overwhelm. A common, predictable, and fair space for multiple individuals to interact. Light speed was decided to be the base upon which all other rules would be built and referred to. It became the basic yardstick. It regulates occurrence and defines distance. Frequency and wavelength became the primary means of orienting one to this yardstick. Once one recognizes blue light as blue, one is oriented to the standard distance of the space by its wavelength and to the time rate of that space by how long it takes to travel that distance. This was the original purpose and utility of this set of principles.

          The word ‘Intent’ and ‘purpose’ imply a superiority of that intention over those things with which that intention have an effect upon and control over. These are my observations so far.



        • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 1:49 AM

          I said;
          “But I am mainly searching for the original ideas that brought about these mechanics. I believe the original intentions will clarify the mechanics.”

          I am looking for the moments of insight and the reasons behind them. Who said that every atom above absolute 0 will emit photons. What problem did it solve. Why is it that electrons jump from inner to outer shells as they gain energy. What was missing from the operation of MEST that that rule needed to be applied. Was it a method of keeping a balance between energy and matter. Did spaces (universes) tend to decay or collapse or disperse over time if this balance wasn’t maintained? What systems of MEST didn’t work out so well.

          I recall much smaller, simpler spaces, but they were never designed or intended to be used for a very long time. They got boring if they stayed around too long. When they are easily made, they are easily discarded. But for several reasons, large, common universes became desirable. I have touched on some of the reasons for this, and I am looking for the complete picture. It seems that when some individuals gain authority over others within a space, they want it to last forever. MEST can be discarded, Power and control is never given up easily.

          Just my thoughts about it.


        • vinaire  On January 9, 2015 at 9:17 AM

          We all are searching for the original ideas that brought about these mechanics. Such ideas need to be built into a coherent structure that reflects reality at crucial junctures. Use of precise definitions and language is very important for proper communication to occur. Discussions are used for further clarification.

          I know you have your recalls, but then there is also the whole universe around you in the present time. Each and every inconsistency needs to be looked at closely. In the resolution of these inconsistencies is where the truth is revealed little by little. It is a long and arduous process. For me, going to MIT and experiencing Scientology was part of this process.

          A logical structure of thought and a precise language to express it are very important parts of this research.


  • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 10:31 AM

    It seems that the “stationary” state is made up of rotational (centered) motion; and the “translational” state is made up of oscillatory (vibrational) motion.

    Thus, a stationary car is made up rotational motions at atomic level. A moving car has an oscillatory motion with an extremely small wavelength.

    Both rotational and oscillatory motions have certain inertia associated with them.


  • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 1:25 PM

    Electrostatic charge may relate to frequency the way gravity relates to mass.


  • freebeeing  On January 8, 2015 at 2:39 PM

    Perhaps, the faster you go the more the wave bends, so at luminal velocities all you have is spin.


    • MarkNR  On January 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM

      “Perhaps, the faster you go the more the wave bends, so at luminal velocities all you have is spin.”

      Perhaps all things (mass) have a circular spin, as with atomic orbits. With increased velocity, that spin would flatten until near light speed, it would appear flat, relative to a stationary observer. At light speed, it would appear 2 dimensional. Hmmmmm. A flat orbit would no longer be an orbit. It would be an oscillation, or a wave.


  • freebeeing  On January 8, 2015 at 2:49 PM

    lol, that i stupid, please ignore!


  • vinaire  On January 8, 2015 at 5:42 PM

    At very high speeds space and time become relativistic, and the idea of speed (ratio of space to time) seems to lose its meaning. A better measure of motion then seems to be frequency.

    A Proposed Measure of Motion

    Increasing frequency contributes to inertia, and the wave-characteristic starts to shift towards particle-characteristic with the wave-particle gradually slowing down.

    There is a lot here that is in mystery, but maybe some kind of a spin starts to set in the energy-centric frame of reference, which may appear as a curving path in a matter-centric frame of reference.

    So, if there is a bending of wave, it may accompany higher frequency and inertia, and the slowing of speed.

    A New Explanation of Inertia

    I have to learn to visualize what it is like from an energy-centric frame of reference.


  • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 4:23 PM

    I suggest you go to E. Hamre’s site and go over an article I wrote. I consider it the most important I have written.


  • MarkNR  On January 9, 2015 at 11:52 PM

    If you don’t get a chance to go to Erzsebets site, I can send you the article. Just let me know.


  • vinaire  On January 10, 2015 at 1:03 PM

    The following is in rersponse to MarkNR

    Per dictionary definition,

    at rest = quiescent; inactive; not in motion: “the inertia of an object at rest.”

    So, to understand “rest” one needs to understand “motion.”

    motion = the action or process of moving or of changing place or position; movement.

    So, to understand “motion” one needs to understand “place or position.”

    position = condition with reference to place; location; situation.
    place = a particular portion of space, whether of definite or indefinite extent.

    To understand “place or position” one needs to understand “space”.

    space = the unlimited or incalculably great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur.

    Here we run into the human-centric view. Even Hubbard’s definition of “space = viewpoint of dimension” is a human-centric definition.

    Here is my thought process.

    (1) “Space” and “Time” are intimately related to “motion” and motion may be looked upon as a manifestation of change.

    (2) The key point is that change occurs in itself because there is no absolute reference point from which change occurs.

    (3) From human-centric view, “space” is something absolute that consists of absolute reference points. Whole classical mechanics is based on this assumption. But the Theory of Relativity has shown that neither space nor time are absolute.

    You are trying to use the feeling of acceleration as the absolute reference point of motion. This again is a human-centric viewpoint that cannot be shown to be universal. It is based on the physical mechanism of the human body that is made up of complex motion.



%d bloggers like this: