
1. 
Figure 1 parametrics require three fundamental physical concepts: mass, length, and time. All of these physical concepts are said to be 'measurable.' None are definable. Is it important that we define mass, length, and time in terms of a more fundamental concept? If you answer "yes," what is that more fundamental concept? What are mass, length, and time defined in terms of that more fundamental concept? If you answer "no," please explain why? What assumptions are you making which permit us to base our entire scientific enterprise on measurables? Are your assumptions based upon reality? Is a physics based upon undefinable measurables real? How do you know? Is reality physical? See our November, 2002 Einstein
Wrong? on Inverse Quantum Zeno timings. 

2. 
Einstein's theories of relativity depend on an assumption
that certain physical conditional identities exist.
Figure 1, above shows an equal
sign forming an identity twixt left side of 'equation' and right
side of equation. 

3. 
Einstein assumed that
'1' (one) may be used to represent physical reality (I.e., e.g.,
in his relativistic equation for mass, shown in Figure 1.) Furthermore, and this is perhaps most problematic, classical
'1s' may be classicallymechanically, canonically ratioed and
canceled. Quantum '1s' may n¤t be ratioed and canceled
classicallymechanically. Where classicists assume classical
one has classical 'state,' i.e., perpetual duration as immutable
stoppability, quantumists must assume that a quantum one is flux
itself, i.e., a packet of quanta,
unstoppable and perpetually, quantum~durably evolving. See quantonics'
memeos of cancel, duration,
evolution, negative, objective,
perpetual~motion,
positive, subjective,
truth, etc.


4.  Einstein assumed that '0' (zero)
may be used to represent physical reality (I.e., e.g., in his
relativistic equation for mass.) Our concern is: what does '0' represent physically? No two physical objects are identical, so how can we demonstrate valid physical zeroness by a difference between two exact physical objects? Just what is '0' physically? Define what zero is physically. Similar to our discussion for 'one' above, if zero is a difference of two physical entities or measurements which are supposed to be equal, we know that is not possible since all physical entities are quantons and thus subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Two uncertain entities differenced will rarely have a probability of 'zero' as their difference. Einstein's relativistic mass equation depends upon physical measurements holding still to produce an ideal 'zero' difference. From a quantum perspective an unchanging, immutable, ideal '0' (zero) is a physical impossibility. All physical differences are Planck rate uncertainty interrelationships. 

5. 
Einstein assumed that light's velocity is absolute. We need to ask, mimicking Fred Alan Wolf, "Herr Einstein, what is light's velocity to a photon? From individual photons' perspectives do different photons have differing light velocities? Or, to all photons, is their velocity 'zero' or some other measurable? Did not you say that light's speed is absolute—ubiquitously? Or do you mean to imply that, as Wheeler and Feynman conjectured, there is only one photon?" What fatal and flawed assumption did Einstein make? He assumed reality is OGC, One Global Context. As a result, he applied classical unilogical/homological mathematics to physical problems. He assumed reality has only one unilogical time frame. He assumed reality's—assumed one global—time is homogeneous. He assumed one time fits all reality's constituents. Quantum reality shows us that all of reality's classical measurables (masses, lengths, times, and gravities) and everything else in actuality are not homogeneous! Rather, they are heterogeneous! Let's compare classical and quantum models of reality:
Einstein would accept former and deny latter. These same classical assumptions, which Einstein made, drove his conclusions that, "God does not throw dice, and that quantum theory is absurd, i.e., e.g., action at a distance is absurd." 

6. 
For general relativity Einstein assumed that any geometrical interval remained invariant across continuous coordinate transformations. This is how Einstein retained classical objectivity in GR. But what else is Einstein assuming here? He assumes that an invariant interval is an objective interval between any two points. In order for that interval to remain invariant, its points have to hold still for arbitrary time, assuming that transformations in physical reality consume time. But quantum reality doesn't hold still. Einstein's points cannot hold still. His classically objective invariant geometric interval is impossible in quantum reality! GR loses its objectivity. Quantum relativity is subjective! 