Rational Metaphysics

I was wrong to mention Copernican relativity.

I have a possible solution:

In the Paradox' situation, the one moment when the two are together in one reference frame is the moment where the flashes go off. But the next instant, the situation no longer exists, and the train is a different reference frame than the station, thus appearing skewed. For the anime to make sense, both train and station have to move, and they both have to transform in dimensions so as for the photons to reach the clocks at the same time.

In the anime, the only constants should be the speed of the photons and the distance they are traveling. All the physical components have to bend in order to remain simultaneous. Their distance to the light has to remain constant with the speed by which this distance is bridged and the amount of time elapsed between flash and clock.

From this perspective, it is not the photon that is seen to reach the clock, but the clock that is seen to bend towards the photon to reach it as soon as appears logical from the reference frame.  

The reason that the objects bend whereas there is no acceleration is that there are two velocities at the same time, which is essentially the same thing as an acceleration.

An object in a linear acceleration equals two different reference frames overlapping in one object.

"An object in a linear acceleration equals two different reference frames overlapping in one object."

Hence, Newtons Laws.

So was that a (B) or a (C)?

Fixed Cross wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.

Yes, this is why you have to make your definitions in terms of relativity in order to test relativity.
But you choose the objectivist way of defining a situation, which is an a priori negation of relativity.

Your definition states that both train and station are actually the same reference frame.

Please listen to this very carefully, because you seem to be thinking in a very common internet and the population in general's way. You are enacting your own accusation.

I have defined only that which relativity accepts as its premise. One cannot accept the consequences or conclusion that are based upon a premise as another premise if it is that premise itself that is in question. In this case, the relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the presumed theory of the constant speed of light. It is the presumed consistency of the speed of light that has brought about this conundrum.

The theory basically states that IF light has a constant speed, events might be SEEN/PERCEIVED as simultaneous events or not due to the time it takes for the light to reach the observer (in this case, the clocks) and despite whether they actually were simultaneous as a history record could prove one way or another. The time it takes for the light to reach the clocks is what we are discussing. So I can not assume the consequential theory of simultaneity if it is the premise of simultaneity that I am testing, else I would be guilty of "affirming the consequent" and forcing the logic into a circular meaningless reasoning (also known as "begging the question").

IF both clocks stopped, then they could both accept the simultaneity issue. But you are suggesting that they are required to stop and thus force the simultaneity issue to declare that the flashers did not do as they have been defined as doing (denying a prior premise). You are arranging that it is impossible for two flashers to simultaneously flash.

I have defined;
1) photon dependent stop-clocks - Relativity allowed.
2) equal distance from a common center seen by EACH frame independently - Relativity allowed.
3) a moving frame emitting photons - Relativity allowed.
4) physically touching triggers for the flashers - Relativity allowed
5) brief alignment of a moving and a fixed stop-clock - Relativity allowed.
6) the consistency of the speed of of light for every observer - Relativity Required.
and
7) two frames accepting the indispensability of the same simultaneous event, the flashing of both flashers - Relativity allowed under the circumstance of zero distance involved (fixed physical touching - the arms triggering the flashers).

Your argument is that IF the relativity of simultaneity is a reality due to the consistency of the speed of light being true, and not merely a perception issue (which is the only thing that Einstein proposed, that it would be a perception issue), then the triggering of the flashers cannot ever be made simultaneous. But that is saying that the physical touching of the arms and the flashers took place when they were not physically touching. That would constitute a non-local event, which relativity does not support and Einstein seriously refused. Non-local touching would violate everything in every ontology because "local" is defined by "nearness to touching".

In both frames, the flashers physically touch their trigger at the same moment simply because the distance Xs is fixed for BOTH frames. And it doesn't matter what Xs is nor even if it is seen as different for one frame than the other, as long as the clocks are centered. That is very easily arranged and has been proposed as the situation. Length dilation can be used to ensure that the train length is properly compensated.

So in effect, what you are saying is that IF the consistency of the speed of light is true, the flashers cannot be made to be triggered together under any circumstances even though they are both definitely being triggered by the same physical event for both frames of reference.

And you are in effect, conflating two separate debates and using the presumption of one to justify the other. So before we proceed;

Do you accept that it is impossible for the flashers to be actually triggered together because the clocks will not experience the light reaching them at the same time? That is denying definition, obvious logic, and practical ability for sake of affirming the consequent.

A) Accept
B) Don't accept
C) Other?

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together.

Relativity was developed because such a perspective is impossible.
One can not have two different reference frames within one reference frame. A = A, thus also A ≠ (≠A).

The "top down perspective" is merely a comparison of the two frames in order to compare the historical event of the clocks either stopping or not stopping to the proposed predictions of the reference frames. It is merely the process of logical comparison of two proposed stories. Hardly impossible.

The mind ALWAYS considers multiple reference frames in order to assess truth... ALWAYS. It has no choice. It cannot think at all without doing that. Logic or reasoning is an entirely different frame of reference (the frame of the conceptual) than visual experience (the frame of the physical perception). The mind is ALWAYS examining both frames in an effort to verify or correct error in either. If a person sees something that is too illogical, they lose their orientation and in extreme cases actually pass out as the mind shuts down.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.

Things are influenced by things in different orders; the sequence of events leading up to the present is different as registered by (having affect in) different reference frames.

There can only be one actual history. Or did you want to debate too?  

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality.

If the speed is fixed and known, and you decide on a time of arrival, the moment of departure you're going to use is wholly dependent on that time.

Look at that. YOU declared the result as a necessity, a defined result and then deduced that the flasher CANNOT both flash together because if they did, the theory wouldn't be correct = "affirming the consequent". But the flashers most definitely can be arranged to have no choice but to flash together from the perspective of BOTH frames.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Relativity involves the speed of light at the basis of every calculation about mass and energy, so as to never come to the conclusion that reality is inconsistent with itself.

Yet fails.

Fixed Cross or Whoever wrote:

So as I see it now, your only option is to prove that the speed of light is in fact not equal from all reference frames.

That is exactly what I am doing. All you have to do is be honest with yourself and keep examining ALL of the details without prejudice.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track.

It's interesting to look at the problem from that angle.

What I think would happen is that the station perspective perceives the photons on the train to be departing at a different time than the moment that the trigger connects. The time difference would be due to the fact that the speed of the train has to be converted into the perspective of the station, "valued in terms of".

The experiential connecting to of a reference frame moving with respect to your own is an act that is influenced by the limits of propagation of affect.

Quote :

With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment.

And yet they can not help perceiving each other as being influenced by it at a different moment.

As you noted, perception and logic don't always agree. That is why you must choose which is going to be your ontology. If perception is your "god", then... you will believe whatever someone else arranges for you to believe. That is the entire intent of a GREAT deal of global mysticism being used right now. The film The Matrix was all about that very concern.

Fixed Cross wrote:

In the Paradox' situation, the one moment when the two are together in one reference frame is the moment where the flashes go off. But the next instant, the situation no longer exists, and the train is a different reference frame than the station, thus appearing skewed. For the anime to make sense, both train and station have to move, and they both have to transform in dimensions so as for the photons to reach the clocks at the same time.

Again, trying to "affirm the consequent", justify the premise rather than test it; "so as for..." = "so that we can accept the premise being tested, we must alter the defined situation into a skew." (which actually wouldn't work anyway).

Realize that by definition a frame cannot be moving with respect to itself. We are examining what a theory requires each frame to theorize as factual. So we must look at each as though each was not moving and see what each would theorize concerning the other, given the premise that the speed of light is constant for all observers. But still, we cannot insist that the relativity of simultaneity is a justification for its own premise.

What is being argued is that;
If A, then B.
And
If B, then A is acceptable.

But then we see that B doesn't seem to be true.

Then saying;
Because B (insisting on its truth), then A is acceptable and other premises (not under test) must be denied.

Isn't it simpler to just accept that even though relativity is closer to being accurate than the older "constant time" theory, it still isn't quite Holy Gospel?

Also realize that we could easily place another fixed clock slightly above the train clock so that the same light that stops one would stop the other... IF either actually stopped. But the fixed clock perspective would have to realize that the train clock is no longer directly under it when the light stops the fixed clock. That would force the fixed clock frame to conclude that light is NOT constant speed, because it affected something at a different distance than the distance it traveled to get to the fixed clock.



It takes this thing forever to allow me to post and/or edit. Each time you post while I am trying to post, it takes another 4-5 minutes to tell me that you have posted and ask me if I want to change my post... requiring yet another 4-5 minutes. Every button click to log on, reply, edit, refresh, or anything requires an additional 4-5 minutes waiting.

I did not mean a nonlocal event. I was just questioning the actual setup of that mechanism, which part of it pertains to the one and which to the other frame. But I've found a way to simplify the problem so that I can more clearly see the difficulty.

There could be just one set of flashers, either on the station or in the train or in any other place, flashing two photons into the train and two into the station, right at the moment the two clocks are at equal distance to the flashers.

If the speed of light is constant from each frame, then what matters only is that the light is seen from within a reference frame, not that it emitted from an object that is moving along within it.

Any moment a light is seen to be emitted, it becomes part of the viewers reference frame.

Do you agree to this?


--

I'm sorry for the posting malfunctions. I honestly have no idea how to disinfect the site from advertising probes or other such beings.

And if I am away when you've posted a response, then I just want to go ahead and say that I've been waiting for you to explain why light can be perceived at different speeds. Whereas this precise problem keeps eluding me (and I hope to change that with the simplification) I can see that if one has an objectivist bottom up perspective of what light, matter, time and motion are in terms of a logical origin, then the speed of light must also bend to this logic and vary in different contexts.

I assume that with absolute time you mean the number of instants of infinitesimal PtA-change.

Fixed Cross wrote:

There could be just one set of flashers, either on the station or in the train or in any other place, flashing two photons into the train and two into the station, right at the moment the two clocks are at equal distance to the flashers.

That isn't a "could be". That was the originally defined situation. There are only two flashers and as we agreed, it doesn't matter if they were moving when they flashed as long as they flashed while exactly centered.

Fixed Cross wrote:

If the speed of light is constant from each frame, then what matters only is that the light is seen from within a reference frame, not that it emitted from an object that is moving along within it.

Any moment a light is seen to be emitted, it becomes part of the viewers reference frame.

Do you agree to this?

Well, not too sure. "Part of the reference frame"? What does that mean? Light can never be "part of" any reference frame other than its own.

The light being "seen" is not what makes the light real. The light isn't seen until it happens to encounter the observer. You can't say that the light didn't exist merely because the observer didn't see it. And more importantly when he saw it becomes the entire issue. It had to exist BEFORE he saw it. And it had to come from a distant source at "Xs" distance.

He knows the source and his distance to that source. But he also knows what triggers the flasher. So when he finally sees the light, he knows that the trigger device has already triggered and moved. He could calculate how far the trigger device should have moved based on the speed of light, the speed of the train-to-station, and the distance from the source. And he knows that the trigger device had to be at exactly Xs distance from himself when the flasher was triggered. He knows his velocity compared to the station and thus the trigger device's velocity. And he knows that the station clock is no longer aligned with himself and thus cannot experience the same light event at that same moment that he has.

He is forced to conclude that light cannot be traveling at the same rate for both himself and the station.


I need to go for a short while again... Be back a little later.

--

I'm sorry for the posting malfunctions. I honestly have no idea how to disinfect the site from advertising probes or other such beings.[/quote]

Fixed Cross wrote:

And if I am away when you've posted a response, then I just want to go ahead and say that I've been waiting for you to explain why light can be perceived at different speeds. Whereas this precise problem keeps eluding me (and I hope to change that with the simplification) I can see that if one has an objectivist bottom up perspective of what light, matter, time and motion are in terms of a logical origin, then the speed of light must also bend to this logic and vary in different contexts.

I think that I missed that post earlier.
..and don't go rushing to judgment on that "objectivist" label on me just yet. Until you understand the depth and scope of RM, it really can't be placed into such labels. Subjectivism has it's place too.

I'm not sure to which you are referring when you say "light can be perceived...". Are you referring to the RM understanding? Or something involving these Relativity animes?

Fixed Cross wrote:

I assume that with absolute time you mean the number of instants of infinitesimal PtA-change.

That is pretty much it... a few more details. Because you can deduce an immutable fact concerning a propagation rate in a theoretical absolute vacuum (even though such a vacuum cannot really exist), you can then develop a standard in comparison to it.

It is like knowing that whatever combination of anything you do, you have to end up with a final answer of 2Pi (for example of a circumference to diameter immutable ratio). Such a provable fact would allow you to design numerous devices of a variety of types, "adding up" any affects involved with any of them and then see how close you got to 2Pi. If your device was to give a diameter reading, but it didn't come out with the proper 2Pi ratio, you know that something isn't compensated yet. Any error has to be rationally compensated or removed. Thus you end up with a variety of means for knowing how far off from an absolute standard you are.

Measuring propagation and specifically "time" (being merely a measurement itself) is a little more tricky. Measuring time dilation is measuring how much your measuring is different than someone else's measuring. I just extend that to how much physical reality requires, regardless of anyone's measuring. RM provides an absolute grounding for physics (which around here, I guess we could never get to).

Time dilation and length contraction have been experimentally verified. How do you explain that if relativity/the constancy of c is wrong?

Capable wrote:

Time dilation and length contraction have been experimentally verified. How do you explain that if relativity/the constancy of c is wrong?

Capable, I take it that you haven't been reading along, or at least not very well. You are aware of only two time theories (or so it seems), the Newtonian "constant time" original concept and the newer "Relativity time" concept. And you are apparently presuming that I am trying to defend that older "constant time" concept against the newer "Relativity time" concept. But the truth is that I am NOT speaking on behave of, and defending your past, "ancient history" older theories. YOU are speaking on behave of and defending MY past ancient history theories for sake of what is "the new revelation" to you, even though to me, it is ancient history.

Imagine that you were to magically teleport back 2000 years. You find that you have to live there and you get to know a bunch of Roman citizen Christians. They are talking about the new savor and how the world is going to be SO much better now that "we have it all resolved". As far as they are concerned the game is finally over. The new kingdom has come. And when you say anything, they immediately Presume that you are trying to defend one of those OLD dark-age things. Obviously you are not one of their enlightened members because you aren't displaying proper faith.

You, knowing how things are going to take place in their future but having no means to convince them that you know, decide to try to teach them a few things that you know WILL be relevant to them in the hard times to come (which they don't really believe are going to be hard times). So you can't go into WHY you know anything, you have to simply get them to understand the reasoning involved in something that perhaps will prevent WW1. You can't even mention a "world war". They would immediately know that you are nuts and might try to drill out that demon within your head. "Nations in Europe all at war??? What nations??? Rome already owns the world and now with the Holy Roman Empire and our savior, there can be no wars. Are you totally nuts?" they would reply.

So instead, avoiding all of that, you simply try to explain perhaps some business tactic or social reform strategy so that you can persuade them toward avoiding a war that YOU know is coming, but they could never believe such a thing.

They keep insisting on how the world is now saved and there is no need to worry about such non-sense social reforms and business strategies. The Church will take care of ALL of our needs and problems. The new clergy have it all figured out with the aid of our savior.

So perhaps instead you get in with some "heretics" who are all in favor of bringing down the Holy Roman scourge dictatorship. They are far more interested in social reform and business tactics. But you still can't go telling them about why you know what you know. Else they will certainly not believe a single word you say.

With your newer friends, you try to explain the strategies by explaining the details of its logic. You try to convince them of the viability of something that you know damn well works because of your own history. But that doesn't make an argument for them. You have to convince them in their own terms - "the gods" that they know determine all things.

You don't mention their gods much, but it seems that every time you try to explain something they insist that you learn of their gods, else you are obviously merely an uneducated fool. They want to fix things, but they KNOW that they have to do it with their god's permission, proper sacrifices, proper rituals, and really bad attitudes toward all the right people now that they discovered that Zeus has anew wife (what you didn't even know THAT???).




Now realize that those people are what you look like to me. I don't give a flying fuck what your "Science" is going to discover over the next 50 years. I couldn't care less because to ME, it is ancient history so far back that I don't even have records that far back and certainly not of such trivial details.

You are trying to defend your "gods" to someone so far into your future that he can't even remember the names of your gods. Yet you keep thinking that he is trying to defend those even OLDER, pre-new-age gods.

I am explaining something that is provably wrong about YOUR current gods, who you think are the "newer, shiny, saving of the world" gods (aka Secular Science). I already know how utterly ridiculous your "new-age" gods are. They are not new to me. Not because of how good and proper those even older gods were, but because of what is discovered centuries from your present.

What has been "proven" in your century is merely that the newer god, "relativity" is MORE accurate than that older god "constant time". I don't doubt that for a second.

Catholicism was more accurate than the Roman panacea too.

If you can't accept that you really DO have a future wherein all of what you believe today is much improved and thus there is discoverable fault in what you currently believe (and discoverable BY YOU, not merely them thar genuses in tha Vatican), you will not be able to learn anything more than what everyone else is going to know anyway. Nor do anything that isn't going to happen anyway.

Relativity has a flaw. It can be updated and by YOU.
Why would you even care to try?
So as to divert a WW3 that you can't even imagine.
Or simply to learn a little more real truth without having to fade into history as one of those ancient superstitious old farts that were so primitive as to actually believe in that old relativity myth.




That is how I explain it.

Nice rant. None of that applies to me, it is merely your presumption. Surprising, because you seem to have this huge issue with presumption yet toward me it is all that you ever do.

I noticed you also didn't answer my question. Saying "x is more accurate than y" does not EXPLAIN x.

You aren't being honest here.

What Capable was asking is how time dilation and length contraction fail to account for what's really happening, if they've been used with such empirical success. Whatever that reply was meant to convey, it did not include an answer.

Because I neither want to inconvenience you nor witness Capable being made out to be a superstitious believer for asking a practical question, I've posted my reply here in the old Stopped Clock Paradox thread on ILP.

I even bolded it for you.

James S Saint wrote:

What has been "proven" in your century is merely that the newer god, "relativity" is MORE accurate than that older god "constant time". I don't doubt that for a second.

I didn't miss that. It was the only sentence, you'll have to admit that, that was to the point of the question.

And still, it is only a claim. You're asking for a lot of faith.
I have constantly given this faith, but it's not unreasonable that people would ask for verifiable facts before they would trust your judgment.

All these things you say about impending doom, and RM's capacity to avert it, what is the reader supposed to do with that? What can one do with it, besides put blind faith in a future explanation?

I saw that I had posted this on the wrong thread earlier..

The security issue has cleared up (for a while).

Quote :

To the man who thinks for himself, the Lorentz transformation (that I have explained many times at this site) is both trivial and in this case irrelevant. You are free to use the Lorentz or any other transformation you want. You will end up with the same paradox.


The intent of all theories, especially one proposed to be as universal as Relativity, is to allow two people, perhaps generations or millions of miles apart, to each accurately predict something such as to know the truth of tomorrow based upon the theory.

This type of scenario is the kind of situation that reveals errors in theories simply by establishing a situation in which the two people can use the exact same theory yet predict opposing results (the station vs the train). The Relativity theory fails its very purpose.

The options for resolve are NOT "Newtonian" vs "Relativity". Those were simply the last two with which you are familiar. To me such is like proposing Heliocentricism vs Geocentrism. Neither is entirely correct even though within the limits of measure long ago, they each "appeared to be" correct.

The issue is not whether there is an objective universe. The issue is consistency in prediction, coherency. If a theory causes two people to predict incoherent results, the theory is incoherent and thus is not "true" despite how accurate it might seem for a while.

Light is something that can be sent from one person to another unsuspecting person and cause measurable results gained by both people. Thus light is something independent of both the sender and the receiver other than being able to be sent and received.

Specific flaws were made in establishing the notion that the speed of light must always appear to be the same constant. But it is pointless to try to discuss such errors if it can't be agreed that the theory fails. It would be like arguing that Christianity has an error in a scripture when its advocate cannot admit to any flaw.

Religions are not for dispensing truth, but for persuading into compliance, whether for good or bad.

The idea of light being independent of its source came from a theory that was deemed erroneous (whether it really was or not). Lorentz's aether theory is what proposed the independence of light's propagation. That part of his theory has been proven to be true by both empirical and logic methods. But the proposal that the propagation of that same light would be dependent upon the lights destination would seem a bit absurd, yet that is what Relativity is actually proposing.

But more importantly, it is by considering the different possible theories (not merely the one handed to you) that you can resolve this puzzle in such a way that both observers would predict the same result and thus serve the purpose that theories are intended to serve.

Every theory throughout man's history has been wrong, it stands to reason that the trend has not changed. The reason is because of those who refuse to think without emotional interference. And I am not proposing that be changed. I am merely seeing how true it really is and interested in the prospects concerning those who can think more clearly even in today's "oncoming dark age".



This scenario indicates that the propagation speed of the light cannot actually be dependent upon the observer's perspective, because in considering that theory, a contradiction arises. So explore the other options.

"What if it really wasn't? What might bring a consistent prediction by both parties?"

Be the theorist, not merely the repeated meme.
Discover the NEXT theory "before the light" of the next dawn.
But the speed with which it reaches you really does depend upon you in this case.

My issue has been with honesty, which is to say the methods used to produce arguments and responses. Perhaps a certain degree of indirectness or withholding is needed by the RM-ist in the dissemination of RM. This is partially the case with VO, as well. A leap of faith is required, initially, to get the subject out of the old (broken/limited/incorrect) state of thinking and "feeling" (motive-potential).

Considering time dilation effects as measured by science, this seems not to conflict with RM (or with VO) in the sense that affects are subject to PtA, always, and are the emergence of PtA's; if one sufficiently alters PtA and "the situation" in which affects coalesce, those affects must change.

If then the situation were altered adequately from another situation, and the two situations were then brought together again, the affects in one might not "match up" with those in the other, even if prior to the alteration they had "matched up".

SR is not saying that "laws of nature" are actually changing (and where it does say that space/time is "warping" that is just a mystification and improper use of language, of course), it is proposing that things like velocity and acceleration (relative movements, which are perhaps accounted for in RM as changes/influences of affects to other affects) can affect those laws, and that those changes/affections can be "permanent" in the matter which was changing. To me, this makes good sense within RM, given that matter/particles are like the memories of affects, and affects are given by the PtA/situations in which they form and exist.

Actually;

Einstein 1911 wrote:

   The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.[18]
   —Albert Einstein, 1911

That was enough to allow those who love to mystify to declare that "space really does bend and is responsible for physical effects due to that bending". He was stating that it "really" exists in the sense that you will perceive it that way when you try to measure it. His simultaneity issue is similarly merely a perception.

And prior to that, in his published theory, he stated;

Einstein 1905 wrote:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based—like all electrodynamics—on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.

But;
A) Rigid bodies do not exist, nor can they
B) The stationary frame, (the "metaframe") actually is necessary and not "superfluous" unless you merely want an estimate.

How do you define the meta-frame if indeed it cannot actually "exist" in the sense that affects exist? And how does the MCR and the speed of affect relate to the meta-frame?

Meta-frame seems almost like an assumption we make, like the idea of non-existence; having the idea is necessary for the purposes of logic and understanding, but the idea never refers to anything that actually exists or could ever exist. Almost like the number zero, then.. zero affect is literally impossible since "existence is affect", but the concept of zero affect seems to define the meta-frame, and this defined concept would perhaps be necessary as part of calculations to determine physical values in RM.

Capable wrote:

How do you define the meta-frame if indeed it cannot actually "exist" in the sense that affects exist?

As you say, the meta-frame is the concept of absolute nothingness in the same way that 0 means none. Note that even in Relativity, zero is zero for everyone, moving or not. The Lorentz equations do not make zero into anything but zero. And that zero value is a necessary reference from which real values arise even though absolute zero can never exist. Likewise, the metaframe is a necessary reference frame wherein not merely number values don't exist, but truly nothing exists including any and all substances. And likewise, that absolute nothingness is common for all people, all perspectives, and all universes.



RM:AO is built from that absolute nothing reference frame, the "meta-frame". There can be very many perspectives and ways of seeing things from above, but from RM:AO's metaframe there can be only one view looking back up. Convert any perspective into RM:AO and then convert that into any other perspective you want and it will translate accurately. The motion of the observer becomes irrelevant.

Similarly when translating one computer language into another, a meta-language is usually used. Language A gets converted into language M and then language M gets translated into any and every language. In the early 80's I was inspired to design my own meta-language for that purpose and really, really, should have, but didn't. The meta-language is never used directly, so in a since, it doesn't exist. But it is a common reference for all computer languages.

Every mind also has a type of meta-language involved in every thought process. And in every mind that meta-language is exactly the same even though the output; spoken language, pictures, motions, and so on are all different for different people.

Every understanding must have a fundamental reference that serves as its ontologically defined basis. Current physics uses EM fields, gravity fields, particles, bendable space, and so on. RM:AO uses absolute nothingness, absolute infinity, potential to affect, and affect from which all things arise.

Capable wrote:

and this defined concept would perhaps be necessary as part of calculations to determine physical values in RM.

Exactly.

Capable wrote:

And how does the MCR and the speed of affect relate to the meta-frame?

I'm not sure what you are asking. The opposite of absolute nothingness is absolute infinity (or rather absolute infinite mass). That is the polar opposite reference which causes the MCR to "exist" (conceptually and physically). All of reality must exist between absolute zero and absolute infinity because neither of those can exist and nothing can exist outside of those. In single cardinality physics those are accepted as merely zero and infinity. So in physics, you and all things exist midway between zero and infinity.

In RM:AO higher and lower cardinalities are also used. In RM:AO you exist between one infinitesimal and infA (the first order cardinality of infinity). Any change in potential ("affect") that requires more than an infA amount of change within an infinitesimal amount of time (the MCR) cannot achieve it and thus the affect is delayed in time causing inertia, something that cannot freely move. It is from that occurrence that all matter forms and without which the universe could be nothing but an ocean of EMR.

Rational Metaphysics ≡ Definitional Logic + Science Methodology

Science cannot tell you what is true, only what is demonstratively false.
Rational Metaphysics tells you only what is true, not what might be false.

James S Saint wrote:

As you say, the meta-frame is the concept of absolute nothingness in the same way that 0 means none. Note that even in Relativity, zero is zero for everyone, moving or not. The Lorentz equations do not make zero into anything but zero. And that zero value is a necessary reference from which real values arise even though absolute zero can never exist. Likewise, the metaframe is a necessary reference frame wherein not merely number values don't exist, but truly nothing exists including any and all substances. And likewise, that absolute nothingness is common for all people, all perspectives, and all universes.

Do you suggest that the meta-frame is accessible from within the universe?  That if we 'move enough stuff out of the way in an area of the universe/dig deep enough "within"' we will be touching that which exists outside of the universe?  That is to say, if the entirety of reality is only this universe of familiar (and maybe yet to be discovered material and field) matter and energy and fields that swirls in its quantum and classical paradigms we term the universe, exists in an infinite in all direction spatial vat of absolute pure nothingness, and that though even space itself may be an energetic manifold that makes it a lot more of a somethingness then nothing, it can be pierced to come across the true nothingness that lies beneath?  

Now, if that is true, I still think Einstein would be correct in implying that, not only is there no way for us to consistently use that meta frame as a post of measurement, but, I suppose semi related to that statement, everything we do and can measure, is not of the meta nothingness, but of something, and it is all moving, thus all measurements of this stuff will be relative to their and the measurers motion.

And I saw you guys may have been discussing length and time contraction before. I personally think length contraction results from optical illusion. And I think time contraction results from mathematical symbolism of the concept of 'time'. Which is the measurement of stuff, and how that stuff changes, how its energy decays, or vibrates related to other forms of energy. I believe the concept of time dilation has to do with the decreased amount of stuff an object can do if it reaches the finish line in a race first. lol, though I really dont know, because I feel that it is said objects that move faster experience more time, this is something I cant grasp and therefore agree with yet. If we imagine 2 cars racing on a flat road, they are racing 1 mile. 1 car constantly goes 100 miles an hour (represents a particle, or object, or space ship approaching the speed of light), the other car constantly goes 1 mile an hour. Mark, get set, go. They will travel the same distance of space, but take different amounts of time, the faster car will experience less time in that event of a shared history, in that event the faster car will 'age less' because it will have completed the task faster. What am I failing to grasp with time dilation? I have seen the videos of the photon clocks and such.

Also, with the idea of cryogenic freezing of bodies. Everything remains preserved, as if 'time has stopped, or avoided', the energy cannot decay, its vibration slowed. If they can be revived in 1,000 years, to the conscious observer it would be as if a second has passed (if they were not consciously dreaming for examples purposes), in affect, time traveling into the future.