On the 'Theory of Kinematic Relativity' vs. the 'Special and General Theory of Relativity'
By RE CASTEL
There is clearly the big question as to how the new theory of kinematic relativity compares with the special and general theory of relativity.
On the one hand, the theory of kinematic relativity regards the motion transformations as of the essence of the change wrought in the realm of phenomena and also the time transformations as of the essence of the change wrought in the realm of noumena. The theory of kinematic relativity regards no arbitrary transformations of space and time.
The theory of kinematic relativity is distinctive in regarding the essences of the changes that occur in the realms of phenomena and noumena. The theory of kinematic relativity therefore promotes the perspective of reality that is according to how reality really is.
On the other hand, the special and general theory of relativity as a whole regards the transformations of space and time as of the essence of the change wrought in nature in general without the distinctions between the realms of phenomena and noumena. The special and general theory of relativity is unclear regarding the transformations of motion, although the relativity of motion is a founding principle of the theory and in spite of the fact that the Galilean idea of velocity transformations (motion transformations) was already in the classical considerations.
The special and general theory of relativity allows for whatever interpretations one wishes to interpret from the mathematical formulations. The special and general theory of relativity is thus a devious theory because it promotes a perspective of reality according to how one prefers to see reality even if that view is not thorough or true.
Clearly, the theory of kinematic relativity propounds the view regarding the existence of hierarchical frames of reference – with governing worlds being the preferred frames of reference over others since they govern other worlds as hierarchical centers in the cosmos. The theory of kinematic relativity therefore supports the idea of gods having fathers, and their fathers having fathers in an infinite hierarchy of gods. The theory of kinematic relativity positively propounds that order reigns in an infinite cosmos and that the cosmos, the universe, forever grows, according to the idea of continuous cosmic mass formation, towards an ever increasing hierarchy of worlds formed out of new cosmic mass and energy created out of the chaotic energy from the void.
In contrast, the special and general theory of relativity propones the view that everything is relative according to the idea of arbitrary frames of reference. It basically states that there are no preferred frames of reference. No particular frame of reference can claim ascendancy over another frame of reference since the theory states that all frames of reference are equally preferred. So, because the theory says that all frames of reference can be claimed as having preference over another, its ultimate suggestion is that there is no hierarchical cosmos since accordingly there should be no governing worlds in an hierarchical order wherein worlds with their appropriately preferred frames of reference govern other worlds. The special and general theory of relativity therefore deceptively propounds that anarchy reigns in the existence and that an ever-dying universe, according to the idea of the second law of thermodynamics, goes towards an increasing disorder that will finally result in an entropic universe.
And thus –
On the one hand, the theory of kinematic relativity presents a distinct and forthright view of reality as it is, with little regard for one's whimsical preferences; and so it presents a demanding view of reality according to the urgency of the mortal circumstance imposed on everyone, such that one may appreciate the opportunity in the temporal mortal circumstance and do the proper thing that one should do.
On the other hand, the special and general theory of relativity presents a sly suggestion that reality is according to one's whimsical choice of what it is, even if one's choice is not according to what is true; and so it allows a complacent view of reality that procrastinates the opportunity in the temporal mortal circumstance, until one may no longer do the proper thing that one could have done.
One may note that the special and general theory of relativity is cleverly premised on arbitrary propositions. Because of this the theory allows arbitrary interpretations of the formulations it has put forth.
This is very clever because the arbitrary propositions allow the theory's claim for success in whichever avenue of interpretation success is found. Even the far-fetched interpretations and whatever ensuing proof by observation can be claimed successes for the theory because the theory allows the varying interpretations notwithstanding the fact that such may be opposed to the other interpretations propounded by the theory.
The special and general theory of relativity is actually a theory in two parts – the first being special relativity and the second being general relativity. The whole theory can therefore be properly assessed according to an evaluation of the main argument in each part of the theory.
On the special relativity part the main argument is that regarding the mass-energy relation wherein the proposition is that 'mass or energy increases as velocity increases'. This argument, as now made obvious, is based on the idea of velocity transformations which is the idea of the transformations of motion. The idea of the transformations of motion was never clearly articulated in the S.R. theory in spite of the fact that the idea of the transformations of motion (velocity transformations) was already presented in the classical Galilean idea. The S.R. theory propounded the equivalence of mass and energy. However, it has never propounded that both mass and energy are 'constructs of motion'. The S.R. theory has never propounded with clarity that both mass and energy are forms of the same fundamental essence called 'motion'.
On the general theory part the main argument is that regarding the idea of gravitation wherein the proposition is that 'space is curved by the presence of mass' and that 'curved space tells mass how to move'. Obviously, this argument that involves the idea of space transformations (e.g., space is curved) stems from the fact that the idea of a space-filling ether and the idea of space as a mere background of the transformations were discarded. Thus, the general theory of relativity also proponed the idea of the motions of space, and hence that space is curved, accelerated, expanded, warped, and etc., and it has even proponed the more confused idea of the so-called 'space-time' and its transformations.
On the other hand, the theory of kinematic relativity is based only on the idea of the 'transformations of motion' according to the fundamental idea in pure kinematics that plainly shows that 'motions move motions'. The theory of kinematic relativity is therefore able to explain both the mass-energy relation and the idea of gravitation on the single premise that regards only the transformations of motion.
However, these explanations are quite difficult to understand if the study is not founded on the appropriate definitions of the fundamental essences – e.g., the space dimension, the time dimension, the essence of motion, the essence of duration, and other fundamental essences – which are all defined in the ebook...
The theory of kinematic relativity, which is premised on the single proposition of the 'transformations of motion' as put forth in the ebook, explains the mass-energy relation along with the clearest ideas regarding the nature and the cause of the essence of gravitation. The theory of kinematic relativity is actually able to explain all the scientific observations of cosmic expansion, cosmic background radiation, and continuous cosmic mass-energy formation. The theory of kinematic relativity is actually able to explain why the nuclear particles exist, why the nuclear forces exist, and the like. The theory of kinematic relativity also leads to the proper interpretations of the ideas put forth in all the other theories such as the quantum theory, string theory, and the like.
Although this is terribly unabashed and perhaps reckless, I would go so far as to claim that the new theory of kinematic relativity and the extended propositions premised on it encompass everything imaginable about the nature of the whole existence.