Oh Newton, I regret this

This is a real pain for me , but I must accept reason. I really like and respect Newton for the absolute clarity and persistence of this ideas, but....

It is apparent to me that equivalence, in the sense that a motion at velocity is equivalent to any other motion, is false. It is what leads to all the paradoxes that surround relativity. The equivalence of motion as a frame of reference is clearly wrong after some analysis. I would not say that a sea of gates where inverting the logic of one gate is the same as inverting all others is true.

So on with the consequence. The change in particle field is distributed to it's field state and this is the direction of entropy. The change in field does not precede the change in its center. It makes many more things clear now. The idea of length contraction and time contraction and the measurement of relative time and space.

I am writing a utility that uses aspects of blender, macromedia flash, scalable vector graphics, openGL, and AI, which makes a complete predictive system which will allow me to simulate matter as it exists. It is logic that cuts this deep. When all other possibilities have been excluded then the final option must be accepted. Paradox is not acceptable in logic. If I am willing to accept paradox in anything, I cannot be sure of one thing. Paradox allows that a thing is not equal to itself and therefore no reason can proceed. Thus I must reject paradox as false, no matter how prestigious the source.

I think the graphical explanation of the forces that act between particles will make much more sense to others when I can create a front panel interface that shows what effects are generated by which cause. The confusion which surrounds relativity, light, magnetism, and gravity is a real impediment to the advancement of science. I see now that this concept of equivalence is the last barrier to creating a complete simulation system of matter.

This is what is making me slow to respond to blogging and other things which go on in the world. There are several things that I might comment on, but they will resolve when I complete this. The fact that materials can be viewed live at 100 nanometers now, will eventually lead to live views at lower resolutions, I am sure. This is the tool I need right now as it allows me to predict what structures can combine in nano-technology or femto-technology.

Watching Davis and Bahcall about neutrinos now.