Hmm. I will use this to explain my political views.

Welcome to it, bro. Ideas are open source.

Just remember the differences are only apparent in extremem cases.

Unfortunately, speaking as a once upon a time Physics major, your thought experiment is incorrect from a number of perspectives. First, the speed of sound actually represents the speed at which the pressure waves propagate through a medium (a gas, in this case). Since the air contained in the box car, and the air, tone generator, and switches are all moving at the same speed as the train, the time it takes for the sound propagate to the switches will be exactly the same as it would be if the train is at rest, or moving at twice the speed of sound (one of those Concorde box cars). Second, there is no Doppler shift within the box car, that could only be detected by switches outside which are at rest (or moving at a different speed) relative to the box car. Third, Einstein's thought experiment can only be applied to light (or other forms of electromagnetic radiation), as light is a fundamentally different beast than sound. And finally, the major paradox of relativity is that if a light source and a detector are moving together in a box car at, say, 99% of the speed of light, the light will take exactly the same amount of time to reach the detector, as measured by a clock within the box car reference frame, as it would if the box car wasn't moving. The difference is that to an outside observer who isn't moving, the light inside the box car will appear to be moving towards the detector at only 1% of the speed of light, and the clock within the box car will appear to have slowed to 1% of its normal speed, as time itself has slowed to 1% of its "normal" rate within the box car.

Whew, so what was your original point?

First, the speed of sound actually represents the speed at which the pressure waves propagate through a medium (a gas, in this case).

Yeah, I know. "Sound" is more tactile than "pressure waves" and I have enough to explain.

Since the air contained in the box car, and the air, tone generator, and switches are all moving at the same speed as the train, the time it takes for the sound propagate to the switches will be exactly the same as it would be if the train is at rest, or moving at twice the speed of sound (one of those Concorde box cars).

Depending on YOUR frame of reference, yes.

Second, there is no Doppler shift within the box car, that could only be detected by switches outside which are at rest (or moving at a different speed) relative to the box car

I am obviously describing the entire affair from a perspective outside the train.

Third, Einstein's thought experiment can only be applied to light (or other forms of electromagnetic radiation), as light is a fundamentally different beast than sound.

Obviously.

I'm not teaching physics, I'm describing a thought pattern derived from thinking about physics.

And finally, the major paradox of relativity is that if a light source and a detector are moving together in a box car at, say, 99% of the speed of light, the light will take exactly the same amount of time to reach the detector, as measured by a clock within the box car reference frame, as it would if the box car wasn't moving. The difference is that to an outside observer who isn't moving, the light inside the box car will appear to be moving towards the detector at only 1% of the speed of light, and the clock within the box car will appear to have slowed to 1% of its normal speed, as time itself has slowed to 1% of its "normal" rate within the box car.

Which is to say your measurements will vary depending on your state, and you are as justified in seeing those measurements as reflecting reality as the guy who isn't on the train.

Whew, so what was your original point?

That your measurements will vary depending on your state, and you are as justified in seeing those measurements as reflecting reality as the guy who isn't on the train.

Apply that metaphorically to race relations, politics and what not.

Any more questions?

To be a bit more clear, the light inside a box car moving at 99% of the speed of light is still moving at 100% the speed of light from the perspective of a non-moving observer. If, however, the light source is pointing forward (in the direction of movement) towards the detector, the outside observer will see the light as taking 99 times longer than normal to reach the detector, as the detector is moving away from the point where the light was emitted, and light propagates at a speed which is constant (in a vacuum, anyway) relative to all reference frames.

| That your measurements will vary depending on your state,
| and you are as justified in seeing those measurements as
| reflecting reality as the guy who isn't on the train.
|
| Apply that metaphorically to race relations, politics and
| what not.
[How do you get those quotation bars?]

I think it a bit of a tortured metaphor, but yes, all such things can only be measured relative to your own reference frame, and your perception of others reference frames is necessarly skewed. But, that would also argue that the reference frame of, say, Matthew Hale, is every bit as true and valid from his perspective as everyone elses. I'd rather argue that some reference frames are biased, because the observers contained within are biased. There must be some universal truths which we all could perceive to be correct (if we can each account for our biases) or the human race is doomed to destruction...

The quote bars are how my blockquote tags are styled.
<blockquote>Text goes in tags like this.</blockquote>

I'd rather argue that some reference frames are biased, because the observers contained within are biased.

You can argue that.

There must be some universal truths which we all could perceive to be correct

Existences are true. Our physical structure and the requirements it brings are universally understandable, and would make a fine place to begin reasoning about survival.

Oh, and since I'm building a metaphor I'm not terribly worried about the variances caused by my discussing sound instead of light. There's an idea to get across, and more precision would take more effort than I'd get back in additional results.

Everything is "material".

Thoughts and dreams are material.

As narrative sequence they are temporal. As images they are spatial. Possessing connectedness to other parts of our lives and a resistance to efforts to wake up, to stop them, etc.. they are inertial.

Is the space, time and inertia of a thought or dream what we would ordinarily call external physical space, time, and inertia? No, but the space, time, and inertia of thoughts and dreams are functional analogs (the true meaning of symbol vs sign).

To say of anything that it is material is not to say it is made out of some basic stuff. Rather, it is to say it is an inertial set of functional relations to space and time. These co-functional relationships that can be analogically applied to everything >because they are found in everything< is what is *real*.

Matter is not some "stuff". Rather, on its own it is an unknown and probably non-existent "X". In physics, it is defined in correlation with energy. Energy, on its own, is likewise an unknown and probably non-existent. i.e., matter and energy are "fictional" co-functional correlates.

Matter was not >stuff< but a set of co-functional mutually defined correlatives involving space, time, and inertia -- inertia is the interconnectedness with the rest of the universe that any entity has, and mass is an abstract measure of how much force would be required to overcome that inertia, that interconnectedness.

Mass is defined as a quantity (not a thing) determined by how much force/energy it takes to overcome the simultaneous (spatial) and sequential (temporal) connectedness (inertia) any entity has with the rest of the cosmos. It's about how much force is required to overcome a universal status quo.

In modern physics, this definition of "inertia" is called "Mach's Principle" which also defines "mass" as the measure of how much inertia (i.e., the interconnectedness) any entity has with the rest of the universe and is an abstract functional measure (number) that gives how much force it would take to overcome and change that interconnectedness (inertia).

Okay, let me emphasize again, matter is not some *stuff*, instead it is an "abstract" element co-defined as part of a functional set of relationships involving space, time, and inertia - that can be applied to everything analogically as a metaphor or symbol.

Please continue brah, and remember to break it down so we can all grasp how to incorporate P6 ballistics into our interpersonal praxis.

wow. i actually got all of that one, cnulan. i think. good stuff and bully for me. yes, errthang is errthang, brah. and "i think, therefore i am" was reduced to "thinking occurs." which brings us back to the initial frames bit. don't you risk, p6, with this analogy of inertial frames and perspective that we get into relativism knots? all these theories and definitions of atomic elements and wot not are just attempts explain to phenomena. we even have to be careful about describing the phenomena -- whose frame is more valid? is he moving from me or i from him? the most universal statement is that the distance between is growing.

boy, we're not going to quit torturing this analogy til it screams "42!" are we ;)

----------------------------------

...my gawd, there's more >> mememomi

p6, with this analogy of inertial frames and perspective that we get into relativism knots? all these theories and definitions of atomic elements and wot not are just attempts explain to phenomena. we even have to be careful about describing the phenomena -- whose frame is more valid?

Relativity is different than relativism. Relativism says there is no absolute truth. Relativity says none of your frames contains absolute truth but also admits to a larger framework which allows translation from one frame to another. This doesn't make you see things the other guy's way...it makes you understand why he sees it that way.

Existences are true. Our physical structure and the requirements it brings are universally understandable, and would make a fine place to begin reasoning about survival.

Given your recognition of this fact, that there are only inertial masses of interpersonal praxis [existances are true] - how much do comparisons of our respective post hoc rationalizations matter?

Today, the knuckledragging tip of the American right wing has accumulated far greater inertial mass within the reigning junta. By that measure, it is more true.

Not only, but by careful design and control of the terms and concepts admissable in the debate, it appears that they've established a semiotic bulwark against metaphorical incursion.

Cobb's political stance seems VERY onto when considered in this light. Trojaning black partisan interests into the American inertial mass just became an exponentially more difficult thought problem..,

Attention has the properties of matter in having a certain kind of spatiality (work with sensation of the body and sensory fields on this aspect), temporality (deeper), available energy (day to day and within a day), and mass (defined by energy and inertia).

The precise nature and measure of consciousness can be realized by Working with attention in these terms. Particularly, since inertia is relatedness to outside factors, the nature, quality, and possibilities of any effort within the moment of attention - reveals its material nature.

Elements of attention's inertial relatedness to that what is outside of its "field" - at any given moment - identify to the meticulous observer those factors in oneself that either inhibit or promote awakening.

always and everywhere, remember yourself...,

"This doesn't make you see things the other guy's way...it makes you understand why he sees it that way."

Boy, that's one fiiine line you hot steppin, P. I think I could say the same of moral relativisim -- in fact, it usually goes one step further to add (re the 'other' perspective), "...and that's ok."

So where does that leave us then, with each perspective eyeing the other? I mean, that is a valuable step, to at least acknowledge validity of perspectives (assuming both/all sides are interested enough to try to understand them. a big if.), but in the meatspace universe (not the theoretical one of inanimate microbodies and laws), bodies need to come to some agreement on how to move forward.

I'm going to impertinently skip a few paragraphs in the PBOK (Prometheus 6 Book of Knowledge, not the Project Management Book of Knowledge) to the part where you say there can be no successful negotiation without two-way understanding of perspectives.

Do I get a gold star?

----------------------------------

...my gawd, there's more >> mememomi

Boy, that's one fiiine line you hot steppin, P. I think I could say the same of moral relativisim -- in fact, it usually goes one step further to add (re the 'other' perspective), "...and that's ok."

Note I did not add that last phrase.

I'm actually standing pretty far back from that line. Maybe I should have said you understand without needing to assume the position.

I'm going to impertinently skip a few paragraphs in the PBOK (Prometheus 6 Book of Knowledge, not the Project Management Book of Knowledge) to the part where you say there can be no successful negotiation without two-way understanding of perspectives.

Do I get a gold star?

Silver star.

Negotiation assumes you're accepting and fitting into the status quo. I'm thinking more in terms of changing the ground on which we operate...and this understanding is necessary to do so with minimum opposition.

Given your recognition of this fact, that there are only inertial masses of interpersonal praxis [existances are true] - how much do comparisons of our respective post hoc rationalizations matter?

Today, the knuckledragging tip of the American right wing has accumulated far greater inertial mass within the reigning junta. By that measure, it is more true.

You're giving up the objective for the subjective? Of the world, not merely in it?

Negotiation assumes you're accepting and fitting into the status quo.

Iono, P. I think negotiation means a desire to change status quo, that you don't want to "fit in."

----------------------------------

...my gawd, there's more >> mememomi

I think negotiation means a desire to change status quo, that you don't want to "fit in."

I'll keep that in mind. But you lose your silver star.

LOL! You're a tough coach, P.

I'll chill in the cut til I see negotiation defined as "parties interested in maintaining status quo." Way I see it now, at least one side wants a change in the existing arrangements ;-)

----------------------------------

...my gawd, there's more >> mememomi

You're giving up the objective for the subjective? Of the world, not merely in it?

WHAT? Never!!!

The objective IS always in the world brah.

Everything is material.

Qualitative differentiation on the truth scale is a function of the extent to which a given worldly enterprise is infused/suffused with uncreated energy, consciousness.

The knuckle draggers are Mordorian..., motivated by the lowest common denominator of gluttony and fueled by mass quantities of negative energy extracted by mechanical means - television and talk radio. The playbook is straight out of Mein Kampf and Edward Bernays. Despite their relative lack of consciousness - they are objectively real, quite powerful, and still harvesting and redirecting mass quantities of negative energy - existential truth as a function of accumulated and interconnected intertial mass

We, on the other hand, have to free people of their negative habits, get them to Work together, promise them nothing more substantial than an enlarged and enriched subjective experience - metanoically turning amenable minds to the developmental experience of genuine blackness.

I'll chill in the cut til I see negotiation defined as "parties interested in maintaining status quo." Way I see it now, at least one side wants a change in the existing arrangements ;-)

I say negotiation is an attempt to get in on the status quo. Look at the status quo and it's obvious Black folks collectively do not benefit when individuals get in on the status quo...because for Black folks, the status quo has us held up individually as examples.

The objective IS always in the world brah.

There's the world (intersection of memories and expectations) and the planet (where a lump rises on your head when it intersects something). The majority of our problems come from a mismatch between the two.

To me, existences are like rock, bodies, oxygen.

Whoop. Time out. I think we're using "status quo" in different ways. I'm just talking in it's stricter sense, that is "the current state of affairs, or current position."

Positions are relative as this crowd knows, so in negotiation, in the abstract sense, I'm talking about a desire to change the existing relationship. Whatever that may be.

I'm getting a vibe that you've attatched middleclassery or some such thing to "status quo." I wasn't going that far (yet). Where are you on this?

----------------------------------

...my gawd, there's more >> mememomi

I think we're using "status quo" in different ways. I'm just talking in it's stricter sense, that is "the current state of affairs, or current position."

I don't think we have different definitions for "status quo." I think we differ on the value of negotiating on these issues. I keep seeing the anti-school integration movement that never died in my mind's eye.

Frankly, I see this system as reaching the end of its life. That's not a threat to the political entity that is the United States of America because it's happened twice already (Crash, Depression).