The trains are illustration of the methods and issue with it,

Actual method set out-

" (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod[//i]." Einstein. That there is the error. My emphasis in italics.

(b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod." Einstein.

That there is the error. My emphasis in italics.

"Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these two

operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid body at

the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by the same

body at rest in a definite position" Einstein. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.

The assumption is incorrect though.

Hi John,

I did not quite get it what your idea / proposal / question with the example of the toothbrush and the link with quantum mechanics should evoke. Can you state that idea more explicitly?

When thinking about all kinds of possible imperfections that may happen for no reasons at all, these possibilities are surely a challenge for reasoning itself. Since logics is about linking reasons to come to results, I think the end of logical deduction is reached when thinking about things that exist / happen without reasons. In this respect, interestingly logics itself is able to capture its own limits: if the input (the initial assumption) is "no reasons existent" then everything could follow (but surely mustn't) from that. At least what surely follows is that whatever output (conclusion) that kind of reasoning will generate, it must be considered true without any reasons (if true and false do not somehow coexist in a kind of "superposition"). In other words, operating logically with "no reasons existent" generates a similarly closed "self-explanatory" world view as for example the deterministic world view does.

But this is exactly what we anyway intuitively have experienced long ago intellectually: an existing God without any reasons to exist, a deterministic universe without any reasons to exist, physical laws and logics without any reasons to exist, an eternally existing universe of any kind without any reasons to exist and so on. When thinking about (scientifically inspired) claims, we cannot other than use reasoning. Because if there are no reasons for a certain claim - or the only "reason" is that what is claimed should be true for no reasons at all - then any meaningful thinking about the assumed truth of that claim is doomed to be unreasonable in the first place (although that claim may indeed be true - for no reasons!).

Obviously logics has its limits and it can determine them quite well (if we do not introduce some conspiratorial bugs in the brain / mind due to imperfections in the fabric of reality). Nonetheless it also has some power to handle the situation, since the fact that there are things whose reasons cannot be captured by human logics (for example the above mentioned claims about God, the universe and all the rest) does not automatically mean that these things exist without reasons. Maybe human logics is not equipped in any way to figure out certain fundamental truths about existence. I know that many scientists would deny this and think (maybe due to the huge efforts in the sciences) that the human mind is generally able to somehow penetrate all of these fundamentals. But I would consider this a rather anthropocentric point of view in that it defines human logics as a kind of universal ruler: there may be reasonable things that lie beyond the light cone of human logics to ever truly grasp them only with the help of human logics. This could mean that there could exist a kind of logics that is not human or more than human or in other words something that is more intelligent than our human logics.

Hi all, it is a beautiful philosophical discussion. You tell things very interesting Stefan about this kind of infinite eternal consciousness intelligent creating this physicality. The actual logic indeed has its limits , probably due to these limitations in knowledges . That is why probably too we cannot really reach this consciousness. I have thought a lot about all this, why we are , why we evolve, why we exist and from What ? It seems odd for me and it is just my opinion of course to be a mathematical accident from a kind of energy that we cannot define.

Now the real big question if this energy transforming and coding it is how is really this transformation of E and what is really this infinite eternal energy. I don t consider that it is an infinite heat personally, but an infinite eternal energy of consciousness and this thing so needs a center physical to send the codes, informations in the particles. WWe arrive so at an enormous difference with the photons alone and the fields and strings oscillating, vibrating.

We have so several different possible interpretations about this universe.

1 is it a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite heat

2 is it a mathematical accident from an other kind of infinite or not energy

3 is it a physicality from a kind of heat utilising the photons and so the strings in oscillating them to create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields. There we can too consider a god or not.

4 is it like in my model made of spheres 3d and 3 ethers sent from the central cosmological sphere , a kind of super matter energy and so it is there that the energy of infinite eternal consciousness in 0D transforms and codes

5 is it a geometrodynamical system with points replacing the strings and so we have the same kind of reasoning than qwith the strings.

6 is it a kind of pure mathematical universe and so we have multiverses, and so we are inside one of them, how to consider the infinities and the infinity so ?

7 is it a thing still different than all these ideas ?

7

In all the cases , we must find the real origin philosophical and the real origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields and properties of matters.

The actual crisis inside our theoretical sciences community at my humble opinion is to only focus on photons, strings or points and this GR. So they consider god or not these photons like primoridal essence and after with the geometrical algebras and the fields , they play with the partitions in maths and numbers and also with extradimensions begining in 1D at this planck scale. But all this is an assumption, they consider the spacetime of this GR, the minkoski works or others and after they try to unify G c and h , the QFT and the GR. But if all this is not the truth philosophically and ontologically speaking, so they are in a kind of prison.

The utilise the flows like the ricci flow to explain these geometries or topologies but the 3D spheres too can be deformed in preserving the volumes if the qutrits and main codes are in this space vacuum made of sphere too of this DE. All can be too explained when the 3 main series of spheres merge together.

So all seems really a question of philosophy and primordial essence after all . The real question so about these Spheres is , are they primoridal these 3D spheres like a choice of this universe, mathematical accident or god, or are they emergent from these geometrical algebras in resume. Personally I believe that the 3D and the Spheres are the choice of this infinite eternal consciousness . The extradimensions so are not really necessary , we can rank the fields in considering the motions, rotations, oscillations vibrations of these Spheres , we can respect the 3D at all scales and we can consider this time simply like correlated with the motions of these spheres.

About the consciousness, that becomes relevant considering the main energy of this infinity in 0D creating this physicality. We have so deeper logics to add to this strabdard limited model , the quantum BHs farer than these protons and the fact that this space vacuum encoding these photons and this cold dark matter to create the ordinary baryonic matter can be relevant even for the consciousness. I have reached the quantum gravitation like this and the antimatter is better understood. It is simply due to fact that these photons and these cold dark matter are two opposite suystems considering the matter energy, the photons have more energy than mass and the cold dark matter have more mass than energy ,and the DE is the main codes.

That implies even a fith force that we cannot still reach and it seems maybe antigravitational. The quantum gravitation is simply a newtonian mechanics but it is not the force between protons and electrons, but between quantum BHs of the DE and positrons.....

I beleive that the theoretical sciences community can a little bit think beyond the box and this prison of photons, strings and GR. They can return at this old schools. The GR seems correct for observations but it is just a tool , nothing tells us that this GR and photons alone are the only one truth.

Stefan,

Not to worry, the notion just took me, I haven't any idea of fleshing it out. It just struck me that since Faraday and the orthogonal relationship discovered in electromagnetism, there has never been an observation where it doesn't hold and we have no idea why it exists. So where do oscillations come from ? It is like there is physically a symbiotic relationship between a cubical space and a round space. So here's a simple macroscopic two part system, a cheap toothbrush, that can translate uniform rotational motion into an oscillation of reciprocating motion at right angles. If it can be mechanically done, why wouldn't there be some foundational relationship that connects the orthogonal to the non-linear which supports the macro array of solenoids, mass spectrographs, scanning electron microscopes and television screens and etc. Our understanding of electromagnetism is deduced from macro observations and the present state of physics really doesn't yet have a comprehensive plan to explain how a material particle can exhibit differentiated fields. jrc

The point of that last post is unclear. I'm not trying to say the lengths can be found to be unequal, which is Einstein's revelation. But it is not a correct comparison:

a) Object reality, material actualization

b) Image realty, observation product, manifestation from sensory inputs

Hi Steve,

good questions about one can be curious to know the answers. Needless to say that i really have no clue how to finally answer them, but that does not mean that there are no answers. We can only see what the future brings and continue to think about every facet of them.

Hi John,

ah, now i got it.

I like your idea of a symbiosis between cubical space and round space, because cubes so nicely could illustrate Boolean logic with its adverse values whereas round things seem (to me) to more represent the consistency aspects of logics with its starting and endpoint that can be put anywhere on a circle.

Stefan,

thanks for the nod, it can go a lot of ways. But then for me, physics and especially theory in any field is not a search for an absolute answer, but more a quest for the right questions. best for now - jrc

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the

principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define

as follows:-- 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of

two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies-- However, because of the prescription of method a) This experiment is not comparison of two different EMr informed observations a) and b) for which 1. is relevant. Method a) puts material measuring rod directly upon the measured material rod. The length of this rod depends upon the atomic structure and properties of the material of the rods. b) the seen image of the rod depends also upon how the reflected EMr is received ( and anything affecting it before receipt.) In this experiment it is not just the co-ordinate system being changed. (A no no.)

Maybe I should have previewed, and said that better. Yes of course observer a) sees the marks on the rod -

but the rod isn't measuring a seen observation product.) b)'s rod is doing that.

Hi John,

I agree that what physics says about the microscopic realms is often not comprehensive if one compares it to the macroscopic realm. For achieving a more comprehensive picture (if possible) one either had to question our intuitive explanations that we think hold for the macro realm (for example forces, cause and effect) or question the current descriptions of the micro realm (or both). The relation between particles vs. differentiated fields is perhaps the most prominent example of an appearing antagonism that one wants to have explained. I do not exclude that there is a proper explanation that could solve what we currently perceive as an antagonism. So I do not say that your thoughts and questions about the nature and workings of electromagnetism are ill-defined. I consider these questions themselves to be absolutely legitimate. It is only that I cannot contribute much to come nearer to an answer for them. There are many attempts to explain what goes on at the micro level more realistically. Maybe one of them will succeed or at least already has convinced you. My attempt was to somehow figure out how such attempts would relate to our macroscopic feeling of free will and the fact that there is consciousness (and presumably some intelligence - whatever it is) in the world that can cause some differences in the course of events for the non-conscious parts of the world, compared to the counterfact that there wouldn't be any consciousness in the world.