Meta Model and a/v

Yes, definitely there is an absolute frame of reference even for speed. Inertial
frames are just math tools to help simplify the calculation of physical problems
and to aid in visualizing and solving hypothetical situations- they say nothing
about the cause and effect of the real system. Our math may not be able to tell
the difference between you running into a car and a car running you over but
Nature sure can. Agreed, an absolute reference frame is absolutely necessary
for preserving the causal principle in any physical theory, not just the Meta Model.

I agree with your full statement [0,9]

Not only acceleration but also velocity must be absolute as originally well thought by Newton but later modified by Neo-Newtonian theorists. Many paradoxes even arise in gravitation unless one accepts the existence of a fixed "center of the world", as stated clearly in HYPOTHESIS I, made by Newton in the Principia.

People confuse mathematical consistency due to a suitable reference frame with the need for an underline absolute frame establishing causality in due interactions of substances. Otherwise, the world is occult as Newton said.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />I agree with your full statement [0,9]

Not only acceleration but also velocity must be absolute as originally well thought by Newton but later modified by Neo-Newtonian theorists. Many paradoxes even arise in gravitation unless one accepts the existence of a fixed "center of the world", as stated clearly in HYPOTHESIS I, made by Newton in the Principia.

People confuse mathematical consistency due to a suitable reference frame with the need for an underline absolute frame establishing causality in due interactions of substances. Otherwise, the world is occult as Newton said.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Absolutely.

Using math of inertial frames, a 90 lb girl walking towards a 900 lb gorilla at
5 miles/h is equivalent to the 900lb gorilla moving without moving its legs
towards the girl at 5 miles/hour. The math can't tell the difference but
I think there is an obvious difference between one motion and the other- the
girl moves her legs and she moves forward for one. For two, the gorilla
moving at that velocity relative to her would have a much larger momentum.
I could go on but Enrico's point is clear- the causality principle is absent
in inertial frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br />I read your latest message twice, and for me it was a setback from your previous one by the standard of clarity of expression. I have a difficult time understanding some of your points, which makes it difficult for me to respond.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Relative momentum between A and B is different than momentum being a relative empirical quantity. I guess this is part of our difference.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is the first example of a sentence that conveys no meaning to me. "Relative" must have an external referent. So what does "relative empirical quantity" mean that is different from "relative momentum between A and B"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No cause of motion can be attributed to relative momentum because such quantity cannot be a property of substance, unless a substance knows what another substance does. This is a fine and important point. The property of substance, for example mass m, is its own momentum mv, as measured with respect to some arbitrary reference frame in the Meta Model.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"Relative momentum" is not a property of any one substance, but rather is a property of any pair of substances. You seem to be trying to posit an absolute frame against which a single substance can be said to be in motion, then to complain that such a motion is uncaused. However, because no such absolute frame exists in MM, no substance's relative motion can be declared as "real" or "absolute" motion, needing a cause. Only changes in motion need a cause.

If substances could not collide or interact in any way such that changes in relative motion were impossible, then the eternal condition of the universe would be an infinite number of substances in an infinite number of random states of perpetual motion throughout an infinity of space, time, and scale. There would still be nothing vaguely resembling an absolute frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A substance cannot have infinite properties since infinite relative frames exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do not know what that sentence means.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A stationary object m in the train has a momentum Pt = 0 in ref. frame (I).
In ref. frame (II) the momentum of the same object is Ps = mv.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

These statements are true only relative to the train or the stationary observer. All inertial reference frames would agree that two objects have a certain specific relative momentum. Neither object has that property by itself, notwithstanding that we sometimes speak as if they do when we leave implied that the momentum is measured relative to the fixed surface of the Earth under our feet.

In space, there is no default frame, so we must always specify both bodies in any statement about (relative) momentum.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now consider an accelerated reference frame (III) at dv'/dt. Relative to that observer, mass m is in an accelerated motion with momentum Pa=mv'. … the issue remains about which of the three measures is a property of mass m and the arbitrary selection does not alleviate the fundamental problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What issue? What fundamental problem? If momentum is always relative and is not a property of a single body, I see no issue or problem. But if you cannot jettison that "absolute frame" in your mind, I understand you will be unable to see how the problem would vanish if you could jettison it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What it is called in philosophy a real metaphysical cause, the "loaded expression" you called it, is exactly that, a property of substance that is real in the sense that it is empirically determined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In my development, I called this "absolute frame" a starting assumption that led deductively to absurdities and paradoxes. It seems to lead there in your reasoning also. Yet you remain attached to this particular assumption. I do not know how to help you detach from it. Once information becomes too woven into our stored mental set of experiences and conclusions about the world, it can become incredibly difficult to untangle because it calls into question too much of what we have adopted as unquestioned fact. The opposite attribute, the ability to unlearn something once learned wrongly, is a special and rare talent that we should never undervalue. The lack of that developed skill is why "vested interests" hold sway most of the time for most of us, even when that separates us from our own life goals.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the Meta Model, since it is based on relative motion and an absence of an absolute reference frame, any deductions including premises deduced from the phenomena about the motion of mass m will result in conflicting conclusions for different observers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Would you care to illustrate this? I do not see how a conflict can be possible.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, relativity and deduction do not reconcile well unless there is an absolute reference frame that is all-encompassing for any possible deductions that can be made regarding anything that exists and all possible observers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I cannot accept a conclusion when I cannot accept its premises. The key one seems to occur just above. Show me an example of how the MM way of treating relative momentum leads to conflict. -|Tom|-

TVF: Relative momentum" is not a property of any one substance, but rather is a property of any pair of substances.

After this statement I have two choices: either I drop out of the discussion because there is evidence of a lack of commonly accepeted terminology, or I give it another chance by taking the risk of the other party repeating an informal fallacy of this sort:

TVF: Once information becomes too woven into our stored mental set of experiences and conclusions about the world, it can become incredibly difficult to untangle because it calls into question too much of what we have adopted as unquestioned fact. The opposite attribute, the ability to unlearn something once learned wrongly, is a special and rare talent that we should never undervalue. The lack of that developed skill is why "vested interests" hold sway most of the time for most of us, even when that separates us from our own life goals.

The above statement can apply equally to all parties involved in the discussion and there is no evidence, on which, any party here involved, is subject to the premises of the above informal fallacy.

For the sake of a discussion based on good faith and without making any referrence from my part to the mental state or ability of the parties involved, I will hereby say the following.

Relative momentum cannot be a real property of two substances. This is trivial knowledge. It is only a mathematical property. The reason for it not being a real property of two substances is that any mass can be moving relatively to an infinite number of other mass and therefore for each pair to posses a proporty due to relative momentum requires an occult mechanism, or God. In order to salvage reality from such absurd notions, we must assume that the motion of a mass is due to a real inherent property of that mass. But momentum cannot be so, since it is a relative measure.

The above are well understood concepts in philosophy of science and cosmology. Unless the Meta Model specifies which is the inherent real property of mass in dynamic interactions and unless an absolute reference frame for measuring that is defined, it seems that the Meta Model is a pure methematical abstraction and according to Leibniz fits the equivalence of hypothesis theory. -