Miles Mathis seems to have discovered an analysis relevant to illustrating how linear c gets converted to rotational 1/c at the unit boundary, without resorting to projective geometry:
Miles Mathis wrote:
I developed an equation to find one velocity from the other, using the radius r, and I later showed that
at the size of the photon, a tangential velocity of c was equivalent to an orbital velocity of 1/c.
Source:
http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html
This is quite an accomplishment from a man that claims that "
There is no such thing as scalar motion"
(Source:
http://milesmathis.com/avr3.pdf )
Perhaps he claims this because he assumes that every motion, even motion in
all available directions (as in an expanding baloon), occurs inside a conventional container, consisting of 3D space and 1D time
By itself, the motion of an expanding baloon does not have a single prefferable direction even in this conventional container. However to a separate observer, this motion appears to posess some directional characteristics.
Thus perhaps we cannot fault Mathis for claiming that "
There is no such thing as motion without a direction" and within the confines of the conventional 3D container, we should've named this motion a "pseudoscalar motion" (a Geometric Algebra's concept) instead of "scalar motion" .
We can only fault Mathis for being shortsighted and assuming such a container for all motion as well as writing about intrinsic direction of motion instead of its direction only in relationship to a particular observer (also a motion).
I bet that Flatland entities, who are gravitating only in 2D, would be convinced that their reference system for all motions around them is a plane - in other words: all motions around them occur inside a 2D container and an expansion of a Flatland baloon is a motion in
all available directions of this 2D container.
On the other hand, claiming that "
All motion has a direction, whether that direction is explicitly stated or not, so motion is always a vector" is much less forgiveable. Especially in light of Mathis' recognition, that motions in all directions do exist in nature (see his papers on gravitation, mass and weight).
His claim would've been correct if it was altered from "
Motion is always a vector" to "
Motion is always a multivector" (as in a inflating baloon) or "
Motion between an observer and observee (between two motions) is always a multivector".
Attributing the intrinsic motion of the observer to the motion of the observee or ignoring the intrinsic motion of the observer alltogether, is a recurring conceptual error in physics. Sadly it is carelessly repeated every day by attaching a motionless Euiclidean reference system to a 3D gravitating observer and claiming that this observer is motionless in this reference system, effectively creating an illusion of a motionless 3D container for all motions around the observer.
