"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[d3x0r]

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this and guess what my axioms are.
To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.

Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.


It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?


It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T²  /  S/T
R = S / T²  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T² S^-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m²Kg/sec³/Amp²   T² S^-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T²
P = S²/T³
; you claim power is 1/T
;

You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms. [/font]Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type

I wouldn't nessacily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.  It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position. 

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;did you see  the solar system through the galaxy animation?   several frames represented   I dunno I sometimes dislike the word frame, since as a picture that implies boundary, or as applied to a building implies structure; and there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate; other than influence(collision/gravity/electrostatic etc) resolution in such a system might be tricky...

[verpies]

I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also?

First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.

[verpies]

Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.

This is not only about new system of units.  This is to illustrate to you that everything, and I mean everything - the whole freakin' physical universe can be expressed in terms of motion that has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.
In other words, every photon, electron, proton, neutron, atom, mass, stone ...any entity (even your body), is a motion or combination of motions and every distance, duration/interval, acceleration, force (Elec, Mag. & Grav.), voltage, current, flux, charge is a relation between motions.

Also, the space and time of our daily lives is a product of those motions. That's why I have been writing that the space and time of our daily lives is emergent.  It is created by the motion of mass which defines the 3D Cartesian reference that most people identify as space.  Humans, also composed of gravitating matter (also a motion) have a difficulty comprehending it.

Motion defines scalar space & time. The relation between two motions can define the Euclidean geometric reference system that humans are are so attached* to.  Before this relation is established, geometry just does not exist (but scalar space and time do). The space in Euclidean system acquires directional properties (e.g. angles) and just then we can write things like below:

• "Space", is the consideration of "distance".  It needs a viewer and it needs at least one "points to view". "3D" space occurs with at least 1 viewer and 3 other "point to view" with none of them colinear.

All that is needed to begin to understand this is the realization that there can be motion without anything moving.  The mere relation between space and time is motion.  This is evident in the common equation: speed = space / time.
Notice that there is no trace in this equation of any object that is moving.  As we progress I will prove that every "object", even if appearing stationary in the 3D Euclidean reference system of our daily lives, is in fact a motion or combination of motions.

It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?

We will get to this shortly.  This will be possible because the basic motion in the physical universe is the speed of light. In fact the speed of light is the condition of rest (a datum) of the universe, from which everything can be measured.  Speed of light is the progression of one unit of space in one unit of time (the magnitude of those units will be given shortly).  Any deviation from the speed of light constitutes some phenomenon. This deviation can happen only as an average of multiple units of motion, because at the scale of one unit the speed must be the speed of light, always!. From the point of view of this universal datum humans and their preciously constructed Euclidean reference system, is moving very quickly inward (gravitating).  This creates the illusion that anything that is not gravitating (e.g. photons, distant galaxies) is moving very quickly outward.  This is also the the basis for the trendy theory of Big-Bang and Mathis' B-photons.

Note, that in the dimensionless equation speed = space / time, both aspect of motion are reciprocal to each other. In other words more space means less time and more time means less space, as well as, less space means more time and less time means more space. 
This applies to the scalar space and time as well as to the vectorial space of Euclidean reference system. In case of the latter, it is obvious that 6m/10s is the same speed as 3m/5s.  Taking this reasoning further, if we keep the speed constant and increase one of its aspects, then the other aspect must decrease proportionally.

The above observations also apply, to non-linear motion, e.g. expanding or shrinking of 3D volumes.  For example: looping space (the basis of the famous spin in legacy science and Mathis' theory) freezes the progression of space (taken as an average) but the progression in time remains unimpeded (expanding).  If orthogonal spins freeze the progression of space in all three dimensions, but leave the progression of time unimpeded, we will have an illusion of shrinking 3D volume (an inward 3D motion).

I should also mention one last important thing. All motions in the universe are quantized, e.g their speeds are ...4, 3, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...
Also, by the reciprocal relation time has all the properties of space but the magnitude of time is reciprocal to the magnitude of space.  This also means that 3D motion in time is possible and 3D properties of time can be identified.  This does not mean some 6-dimensional space, because time has no direction in space and vice versa, thus they are not a part of some one big all-encompassing continuum.  Space and Time are merely aspects of motion and as such they are interrelated.  By their very definition, dimensions are completely independent variables - any interrelation between two variables destroys their qualification as dimensions (mathematic or geometric dimensions), and here we have a very strong relation, namely: speed = space / time.

Gravitating observers expand in time in all dimensions equally (pseudoscalarly), thus their temporal motion can be described by one number (instead of three). This motion is the clock time of our daily lives.  It is also the reason why time appears 1-dimensionally to us.  Any deviation from this universal 3D expansion in time manifests itself as strain between normalized^** reference systems, and because of this. 1D interaction with another motion gives rise to electric phenomena, 2D interaction gives rise to magnetic phenomena, and 3D interaction gives rise to gravitational phenomena.

In this manner my system is different, from Mathis' but as entities are built up of from basic motions it starts converging with his.
Since we are both computers programmers and physicists, I can write it this analogy.  Mathis C code is almost like mine, but it compiles to different machine code for the CPU that runs the universe... or it doesn't compile at all because Mathis does not consider anything below the photon. 
His essay on time is very insightful for novices, though.

It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

Xavier Borg's compilation of units is only 80% correct, because he does not have the insight into the universal progression of space and time (not vectorial s&t) and he is unaware of the 3D symmetry between space an time.  Larson's is 99% correct (1% because of the Statcoulomb), but his article is over 900 pages long so I opted to direct you to the shorter but less accurate compilation of those units.
But yes, many such identifications are possible. For example energy is inverse speed [t/s], but let's leave that for later, because from my experience with other people your head should be spinning by now

I wouldn't necessarily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.
It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position.

We shall be as specific as possible or we risk degenerating into metaphysics.
The Euclidean coordinate system is emergent.  It is created from the relation between at least two motions (gravitating observer and Observees).  It actually is a result of restrictions placed on the Projective Geometry which is the least restrictive geometry where only only cross-ratio is invariant and where pseudoscalar^*** motion dwells.
Affine Geometry is more restrictive, Metric Geometry is even more restrictive and Euclidean Geometry is the most restrictive. See this.

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;

That is true, but that reasoning applies only to perspectives in the same type of reference systems (e.g. Euclidean reference systems).  It should be clear to you by now, that other types of reference systems exist and they can be moving pseudoscalarly in respect to the Euclidean system.  No amount of translations and rotations will transform motion in one system to the other, because they belong to different class of systems. In fact there is an inherent strain between such systems and phantom forces appear between objects that are stationary in them.

there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate;

and there is no requirement that the same "space" is represented in only one reference system of the gravitating observer such as a human pair of eyes.


Notes:

* (pun intended)

** This begs a question "normalized to what?". The answer: Normalized to the average gravitating motion of a material observer, which means, space frozen to one unit by looping (or directional reversals) and uniform progression/expansion in time in all available temporal dimensions, in other words "pseudoscalarly".

***  "Pseudoscalar" is a term taken from Geometric Algebra - a very pleasant and clean piece of math.  It means a multidimensional vector (a multivector) that has the same count of dimensions as the space in which it resides.  Magnitudes descried by it don't have an identifiable direction because the pseudoscalar occupies all avaiable dimensions and thus no dimension is special/preferred.  Pseudoscalar is different from a true scalar, which is a 0-dimensional quantity devoid of any direction by its very definition, e.g. like the sweetnes of sugar.  Thus scalar motion is an oxymoron, but pseudoscalar motion is not.

[d3x0r]

A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.

(this was formatted better when I wrote it )

Right see, it all gets to be complex when you start introducing rotation. 


But; in the case of following another magnet, there is a translation acceleration based on the current alignment of poles [strike] (Cos of the north's... or projection of one north on another north... is +1 to -1, and if, perfectly, the magnets are at right angles, there is a 0 attraction... which can be felt as short of a null zone; [/strike]
okay but then again the position of the two matters. 

(darn, nested [  LI ] tags don't work)

   
(given that projection of north on north is 1)
          If the delta in position is projected on the north...
          at 0 is a repulsion (side-by-side) and 1 and -1 is attraction  (s-n and n-s) at a minor change above or below zero there is an attraction, I'll throw in at the size of the magnet in the direction of the north/south axis... (height)
given- projection of north on north is -1
     if the delta position projected on the north is
     
0 - they are attracted 1 and -1 they are repelled... and it follows that a delta more than their size projected on north begins repulsion.
[/li][/list]


and some other curves thrown in there, but probably using these new consistent units I can finish that.


But this interaction isn't the result of a collision - or a bump on the edge of something.  Because also at 90 degrees where the projected norths are 0 (dot product), they experience a torque about their center of (mass?); independent of the direction or other velocity changes, and it's in a direction so that... hmm there seems to be conditions to this...

if N^.N < 1,... this is more about the horizontal projection... which is a plane at the equator defied by north and the origin... so using a point-normal form to define that equatorial plane...
 
at positive delta on the height
   
at 0 delta on this plane, the desire is to have N dot N = 1.
> 0 delta the desire is to have -N align to the pole projected on the surface of the particle.  this is more of a look-at function.

at near-zero delta on the north axis, the tendency is to align N dot N to -1.
at negative delta greater than the height, the tendency is a negative operation of (case 1).


all of that probably boils down to some simple algorithm


And I guess I just need a constant to apply for radian T^-1  per density of space

[Excal]

It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T²  /  S/T
R = S / T²  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T² S^-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m²Kg/sec³/Amp²   T² S^-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T²
P = S²/T³
; you claim power is 1/T

Voltage is an acceleration? I guess you could say that it is an acceleration of inverse velocity (t/s²)

V = IR
R = V / I
R = T/S²  /  S/T
R = T/S²  *  T/S
R = T²/S³

P = 1/S on same basis. 1/T = frequency