On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 4:53:53 AM UTC-4, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:21:47 AM UTC+2, Douglas Eagleson wrote:   
   > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 7:51:50 AM UTC-4, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:   
   > > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:35:25 PM UTC+2, greysky wrote:   
   >    
   > > > > It all boils down to three conditions: no motion, constant motion, or   
   > > > > accelerated motion.   
   > > >   
   > > > Per relativity, we cannot distinguish between no motion and constant   
   motion.   
   > > > There are only two cases: inertial vs accelerated frames.   
   > >   
   > > I am not sure, but since the coming of special relativity   
   > > there have been generalized spaces.  A view while in a space became   
   > > independent of sighting relative.  Viewing an object can not   
   > > determine one of these two cases.  But there is a universe view   
   > > allowed in these instances.   
   >   
   > I'm not sure what you are referring to, but in relativity there is no   
   > universal frame of reference: that is what relativity means.  OTOH, we   
   > can always discern between being in an inertial vs an accelerating frame   
   > of reference, and we do not even need to look outside the window for that:   
   > we are accelerating as soon as our jiggling starts failing, not to mention,   
   > we can actually feel it.  And we can measure that acceleration.   
      
   Correct there is no universal reference frame.  Only contents   
   are measurable relative to each other, but one Universal relative   
   number exists called c.   
      
   I agree spaceship internal force sensors can detect the case   
   of non-inertial state.  My dilemma was to solve the question   
   of "lost in space".  Do we have a capacity to measure a value   
   or values of relative location to get "unlost".  And here is   
   the dilemma, if your inertial state is lost from your navigation   
   computer, how will you recover it?  Thus the preference for   
   horizon relative navigation.   
      
      
   >   
   > > Think of the concept of a one dimensional horizon.  Space   
   > > at 90 degrees to the assumed motion vector becomes empty.  The   
   > > size of this empty determines fractional c speed.   
   >   
   > The fact that the surrounding squeezes in our direction of motion is   
   > still all relative: from the point of view of (any observer stationary   
   > relative to) the surrounding we are zipping by and length-contracted,   
   > from our point of view it's the surrounding zipping by and overall   
   > squeezed.  And we would see no distortion at all, in any direction,   
   > when looking at other objects that are stationary relative to us:   
   > just like the observer stationary relative to the surrounding sees   
   > no distortion in the surrounding.   
      
   I do agree.  The length contract observation is the cause of World View   
   necessity.  Your statement does state World form nicely.   
      
   >   
   > > This is a partial attempt to introduce world view implications.   
   >   
   > I think there could be some merit in looking at acceleration as an   
   > absolute, and the fact that we can "feel" it is the only relevant   
   > connection between physics and conscience that I can think of...   
   > But I am speculating now.   
   >   
   > Julio   
      
   A classification of feeling variable is a valid endeavor.  When we   
   as the odd contents of space feel acceleration it is a valid   
   question relative to conscienceless. Is acceleration the first   
   conscience force or is it light?  Or is it pressure on the baby's   
   skin?  In modern physics we have past the variable of feeling list   
   and no have to discover hidden variables.  Variables which are not   
   sensible until a sensing field is discovered.  I believe c's   
   relative constancy was the first hidden variable possibly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)