Applying Einsteinian Principles to Slavic Studies J=vd squared

For a very long time I was acutely aware of the fact that distance played a crucial role in my comprehension of the other Slavic languages. As a native Czech I can understand Upper Lusatian Sorb-Wend even better than I can understand Slovak. In both cases I can understand more than 99% and Slovaks and speakers of Hornosrbsky also understand 99+ % of what I say in Czech. Dolnosrbsky (Lower Lusatian Sorb-Wend) and Polish are less comprehensible to me, and I would say that I understand 85% to 75%. Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Belarus are comprehensible to me in the range of 65% and Russian (without an effort to learn) would be about 50% comprehensible. I can also understand about 75% to 80% of Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian. Macedonian and Bulgarian drop (for me) to a level of about 65% (about like Ukrainian). I make the leap of faith in speculating that my Slovenian friends can understand 99+% of what Slovenian villagers in Italy have to say. But, like I listening to Hornosrbsky speaker, they may find the dialects "quaint". Similarly, I presume that speakers of Ljubljanski can understand more than 90% of KAJkazic Croatian. Other forms of Croatian (C\'A & S\'TO) drop off in comprehension
{for Slovenians} as do Bosnian and Serbian. I speculate that Montenegrin, Macedonian and Bulgarian are less well understood by Slovenians than are the various forms of (previously known as) Serbo-Croatian. I also speculate that Ukrainian and Belarus are less understandable to Slovenians than the South Slav languages and that Russian is the Slavic language "most foreign" to Slovenians.
Another way of looking at this is that (for me) the Moravian Dialect of Czech is transitional between Slovak and Bohemian Czech. Slovak (from my point of view) is transitional between Ukrainian and Czech. Etc. I strongly suspect that Poles view Ukrainian as transitional between Polish and Russian. Thus I believe that all Slavs view the SLAVIC LANGUAGES as a CONTINUUM. In the past there was a continuum of Slavic languages around S\'tajersky Hradec (GRAZ) in Austria which probably served well as a continuum between Slovenian and Slovak and Czech and Croatian etc.
Social Sciences are not like "Hard Sciences" with absolute formulas in physics and chemistry. Yet, it is quite customary to think of the evolution of languages in terms analogous to Biological Evolution. Language trees are drawn as if they represented the relationships between biological species. In the same way I hope to employ Einsteinian Theory of Relativity to relate "distance squared" as a contributing factor to Slavic language dialectics.
It is my observation that Language Dialectics Based on Distance Squared is preserved in SLAVIC LANGUAGES much better than in the hodge-podge of Germanic or Latinic languages, One could hardly claim that Spanish is transitional between Portuguese and French, or that German was transitional between English and Yiddish. Certainly Italian is NOT a transitional language between Romanian and French. This is indicative to me that the Slavic populations have remained settled in their present territories for very, VERY long time..... most likely since the stone age and that other Indo-Europeans migrated much more.
I propose that a formula could be stated (albeit with less certainty than in physics) in keeping with Einstein\'s
E=mc squared where J= Jezik-Jazyk-Jargon V= Velikost-Velikost-VOLUME D=Daljava-Dalka-Distance
The Formula for Slavic Languages would be stated as J=vd squared.
Thus Russia, with a very large land-mass and population, would distort (like a massive star producing a gravitational lens) the reality of Slavic language continuum. It would be like a very BIG "m" in the E=mc squared. It would not make the formula wrong, it would just have to account for anomalies. Similarly, Estonia, Hungary and Romania would be analogous to Black Holes. The "constant" (like the speed of light) is the distance in Kilometers.
Petr Jandacek