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.

Figure 1 parametrics depend upon several mathematical concepts: objective formalism, analytic calculus, parametric independence, identity, etc.

Einstein's theories of relativity depend on an assumption that certain physical conditional identities exist.

Our concern is: As shown in Figure 1 above, Einstein imposed concepts of mathematical identity on physical reality. When one does this, one apparently assumes:

Figure 1, above shows an equal sign forming an identity twixt left side of 'equation' and right side of equation.

Figure 1, above shows a difference in equation's denominator which assumes several identity conditions: v identical c, when identical v/c is 'one,' 1 identical 1, and identical 1 minus identical 1 produces zero.

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.)

Our concern is: what does '1' represent physically? No two physical objects are identical, so how can we demonstrate valid oneness by a ratio of one exact physical object to another as '1?'

Just what is '1' physically? Define what one is physically.

If 'one' is a ratio 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 ratioed against each other will rarely have a probability of 'one' as their ratio. Einstein's relativistic mass equation depends upon physical measurements holding still (i.e., 'zero momentum') to produce an ideal 'one' ratio which can then be differenced with some mathematically ideal '1' which apparently does not exist.

Furthermore, and this is perhaps most problematic, classical '1s' may be classically-mechanically, canonically ratioed and canceled. Quantum '1s' may n¤t be ratioed and canceled classically-mechanically. 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.

Here is material from our August, 2000 News which shows graphically what we intend:

Our Quantonic heuristic is that quantum nature offers us no physi of either oneness or zeroness. Certainly, nature offers us no physi of identity! Ditto infinity, tautology, etc. "Doug, how can you say that?" Look at our Quantonic representation of a nonphysically expressible '1' below: '1' August 2000 Figure 2 - Quantonics' quantum 'one' as inexpressible physically. (How could we change this graphic to make it expressible physically? Hint: add uncertainty.) Quantum reality's best opportunity to express a physical 'one' is shown in Figure 2. But it cannot do that. Right side numerator and denominator quantons are stochastically never 'same.' They will always differ by at least a Planck quantum uncertainty. From a quantum perspective an unchanging, immutable, ideal '1' (one) is a physical impossibility. All physical ratios are Planck rate uncertainty interrelationships.

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."

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!