Please forgive, when awkward, the English of this page. English is not the author's native language.
Average Reading Time: 4 min 30 seconds
The international system of units
The 'INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS', abbreviated SI, defines the seven quantities listed in the left box below and the specific methods to build up a physical standard for each, called the unit, against which any other quantity of the same type can be compared.
Or Physics seven (7) Basic quantities
These quantities are considered to be the building blocks of physics.
- Length (meter)
- Mass (kilogram)
- Time (second)
- Electric current (ampere)
- Thermodynamic temperature (kelvin)
- Amount of substance (mole)
- Luminous intensity (candela)
They are used to express the laws of physics.
Many other quantities can be derived out of the combination of the basic quantities.
For instance a speed is the ratio of a length by a time.
Acceleration is the ratio of a speed by a time.
And a force is the multiplication of acceleration by mass.
Because physics expresses everything in the Universe in terms of these basic quantities, one concludes for oneself that in physics there are no other basic quantities than those of this SI unit system.
Surprisingly, even though there can be no other basic quantities in the real world, other major systems of units have been established in the world of physics' mathematics, (that is in our human minds) with conversion factors to the SI units.
Think about it!
How could the universe be based on the SI set of quantities and on other differing basic quantities altogether?
Worse, in quantum mechanics, besides space and time, only particles (quarks, electrons, etc...) and four forces exist!
Is Force a Fundamental or a Derived Quantity?
How is this quantum mechanics' fundamental concept of force (a pillar of the theory) getting along with the SI quantities, in which it doesn't even appear?
As shown above, in the BOX: "Derived Quantities" a force is only a mental byproduct of a series of other mental concepts that of speed and acceleration all mathematically derived from length, time and mass.
Is force a fundamental constituent of the universe as asserted in the quantum theory, or is force a derived quantity of length, time and mass?
Physics' concept of force is dubious. Trying to make sense of Nature through physics concept of force doesn't lead very far.
Should we not, we the human race, decide once and for all what are the basic quantities that make the universe?
Physics' has problems... and scientists will very likely not tackle these problems soon!
In a first analysis it seems that experimental as well as applied physics may use several unit systems, as needed, with no conflict of interest.
Yet considering the fundamental entity of force, theoretical physics is far from satisfying my expectations!
Unfortunately, even though the time for theoretical physics to define a policy that makes sense on that matter has come, that will not happen for several reasons:
It seems that physical experiments will point out any wrong doing in theoretical physics and the latter will be corrected accordingly, but one loses confidence when logic does no longer rule.
- Physics can grow in any direction.
While parts of physics no doubt reflect reality, should other parts of physics be fiction that works as well.
I am thinking about parallel universes for instance and the concept of non-locality, but force could be part of it.
Science may stray from reality, science continues its course untarnished and revered.
- There is no head guiding the science of physics.
Whether some pull the alarm about a given theory or not, that makes no difference either!
Some physicists may contradict others that makes no difference; science continues its course untarnished and revered.
A famous case of dissension between 2 great physicists, Einstein and Bohr, concerns the uncertainty that allegedly is underlying Nature at quantum scale; in 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote a paper (EPR) using the very mathematics of quantum mechanics and proving that uncertainty cannot and as such does not rule Nature; nowadays EPR, which remains a valid mathematical demonstration, is flatly denied by physicists!
- Physics is too deeply involved (in details) and far too advanced (in complexity) to be able to change its departing points.
As an example, in spite of Einstein's idea of space-time, which abolishes both time and space, time ("t") and space ("d" for distance) are still honored in physics.
Physics' science stubbornly rests on conventional concepts, some dating millenniums such as "time" not seriously questioned by modern science.
And no matter the convenience and beauty of the mathematical tools, logic parts from physics and all together physics parts from reality, right from beginning with the concept of inertia, a concept utterly fictitious as it has no physical collateral!
Solutions to physics dilemmas are bound to appear though.
Whether it is the solution or not, gravimotion's interpretation of Nature, the object of this web site, has the merit to confront head-on many of physics dilemmas and to propose in all cases simple logical solutions.
Gravimotion's interpretation of Nature
By contrast to physics various systems each made of various basic quantities, gravimotion's interpretation of Nature is based on a single phenomenon.
Gravimotion image of reality is based on the phenomenon of motion only and nothing else!
And that makes of gravimotion a unified interpretation of Nature from start to end, a feast far from being reached in science!
To start with space and time, in gravimotion, are considered to be mental byproducts (non physical entities) of motion (a real entity); and to corroborate is Einstein's time dilation, in which time is a function of motion (called relative speed in science); in gravimotion, we stand by Einstein's mathematics: motion is the real entity, time and space are but byproducts of motion and of dubious existence.
Now consider the gravitation phenomenon as being free fall, the fabric of gravitation is motion! Then consider the translation of light that is motion involving neither mass nor matter, light is pure motion! Finally add physics' teaching that heat is motion (of molecules) and you get an idea of that unified aspect of reality as viewed from gravimotion's concept of motion.
By contrast gravitation and electromagnetic fields (light) in science remain stubbornly irreconcilable!
The fact is science is based on the observation of reality, not on reality. Relativity is based on the observation of motion not on the reality of motion;
motion reality is overlooked through motion observation; in science motion ends up being an ephemeral byproduct of force; force is the main actor.
Note that does not put in question the relativity theory as the observation of motion through light is as real as the reality of motion.
Science and gravimotion interpretations of Nature
In science, either motion is elusive (relativity theory), or motion is, for all purposes, ignored (quantum theory).
All in all, in science motion is but a mental by-product of forces and fields, which are the real things.
Gravimotion is the mirror image of the conventional interpretation made of physics' mathematics. Motion, which is not considered to be real in science, is real in gravimotion!
Then all that is considered real in science is not in gravimotion. In gravimotion's interpretation of Nature, physics seven basic quantities above, as well as all of quantum physics forces and particles are but mental by-products of motion's reality.
Last but not least, while being the mirror image of the conventional interpretation of physics mathematics, none of these mathematics are denied in gravimotion.
The goal of gravimotion is not to challenge physics mathematical theories.
Gravimotion's ultimate goal is to unveil the physical consistency behind physics' empirical equations and experiments...