[EL]

Velocity is the frequency of unit displacement.

Within the very general concept of steady states, velocity is

internally a co-concept of inertia and both indicate constant states

within the temporal boundary of such a steady state.

To arbitrate a unit of measure for velocity, a unit of length and a

unit of time constitute the quantities being related. Although it seems

so to be correct it is not. velocity is the frequency of displacement.

Here we consider every motion to be a wave, where the wavelength is the

unit length and the rate is a frequency per unit time. Then velocity as

a physical expression must have the essence of "How frequently would a

moving entity traverse a unit wavelength".

We all know that one meter is an arbitrated unit of length, but we also

know that if we choose a high resolution unit then the figure of

significance and accuracy must increase.

By adopting the highest natural frequency wave as the foundation of the

metric, then both of length and time would gain the merits of

significance and accuracy while measuring coarser quantities.

Relativity came with a two opposing effects.

1- It spoiled the arbitrations.

2- It opened our eyes to possible deformations of the metric relative

to references.

By postulating that the velocity of light in vacuum is constant to all

inertial frames of reference, should then be obviously equivalent to

postulating that the frequency of unit-wavelength-displacement in

vacuum is constant in all inertial frames of reference. If such a

postulate was consistent with nature, then by observing frequency

shifts we must conclude that the relation between the source and the

observer may not be inertial. While if there was some way to be

absolutely sure that the relative frames of reference were inertial,

then we must conclude that the postulate was not consistent with

nature. We may also conclude that the velocity of light is practically

a variant that depends on the relative velocity of the source and the

observer expressed as a change in the frequency and not the wavelength.

However, by assuming that the frequency and the wavelength of light in

vacuum are covariants they may compensate and yield a constant ratio

once again.

In other words, the covariance of time and length scales in relativity

is an artefact of holding tight to the second postulate of SR. Then we

came to forget that our strategy was to model a system with which we

can pin down a metric of length and a metric of time that is constant

across coordinate systems, which is obviously what relativity failed to

accomplish. By losing confidence in the length of a meter and the time

interval of a second then what do we mean by meters per second! They do

not mean anything under the context of relativity as it is understood

today.

If the circumference of the tire in a car was one meter long and the

car was moving such that the tires complete 10 cycles per second then

the velocity of the car is 10m/s on the road; because velocity is the

frequency of a unit displacement. Now let an observer be on a train

moving at any arbitrary velocity but has the knowledge of the metrics

of the car, then the velocity of the car relative to the road as

observed by the train rider shall never change at any relativistic

concepts. If we assume that the train was moving with a velocity of

20m/s relative to the railway and in the same direction of the car,

which moves on a road parallel to the railway, then the train must be

10m/s faster than the car.

This Galilean relation of velocities is not wrong, because it is

founded on local measurements made in each frame then realising that

the railway and the road are the same ground frame from which an

observer determines that the care's velocity is 10m/s and that the

train's velocity is 20m/s.

The care as a moving frame would must relate to the train through the

common ground to be 10m/s faster, such that if the car was stationary

then that would be the speed of the train. Consequently, the train

rider would think that the car was moving backwards at a speed of

10m/s.

So what did relativity of SR and GR came to add to common sense!

It is a relativity of remote observation mediated by light, in which

the postulated constancy of the speed of that light is critical to the

theory. Then if we neglect remote observation, the Galilean

transformation must stand correct 100%. This is what every engineer

applies in every day life work.

Then who needs the relativity of Light!

Astronomers and fast particle physicists do need relativity for the

obvious reasons.

Such professions may not apply material yardsticks and clocks between

the observer and the being observed, hence it was inevitable to invent

a system that takes into consideration the apparent effects of light

speed in mediating the information.

Apparent effects means that nothing concluded by relativity can be real

at a level of empiricism.

Such a mental work is like a signal, which is vulnerable to noise and

misconception.

Therefore, time dilation and length contraction are not permanent

physical changes but visual deformations of remote information mediated

by light.

Kind regards to all.

EL