Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Thank you, for your very reasonable exposition of General Relativity. Unfortunately I do not see how from anything either Einstein or yourself stated may follow anything that would require violating the necessity of the Copernican mediocrity principle being applied temporally. As it is the principle is spatially honoured by the contemporary cosmological model. Given the unity of space and time this situation strikes me as a contradiction.
Each temporal application of the Copernican mediocrity principle implies that Einsteinian relativity is spatially unified into a contradiction.
All that you said about the free falling bodies constituting the inertial frames is correct. The universal flat calendar hardly follows from any of that.
Orthogonal inertial bodies constitute a calendar framework, and from this the behavior of free falling bodies follows naturally.
What it may imply philosophically in terms of motion is only that the speed of light is the speed of time itself. This is the speed of universal motion but in the same breath it is the measure of the universal rest. That is why the velocity of light is as constant as the now is unchanging while serving as the rest frame to the changes moving past it.
Note that if the speed of rest is the measure of time and universal rest is the measure of light then the true explanation for why the speed of light is constant in moving rest frames lies within the philosophical implications of motion.
Mass, energy, gravity and acceleration are all acting as the brakes on that speed. The differential of masses creates the all differential of relative velocities below that universal speed of time as well as the very opposition of motion to rest. In that sense motion is different bodies settling their mass differential. The differential is never settled once and for all so the motion is endless.
Equal application of acceleration differentially retards speed and is a result of differential but opposed motions, but in a time rather than a spatial sense, and this is why masses act upon energy at universal oppositions.
That does not imply though any single linear direction of that motion while the very word expansion suggests an outward uniformity of it.
Naturally this implies that an inward differential would contract motion linearly but in all directions.
Nor the possibility of space itself moving independently at super-superluminal velocities follows from the strict unity of space, time and light being all but aspects of one and the same. What relativity suggests is that space, on the contrary, may not possibly overtake the light in that fashion. If it is understood that the speed of light is the speed of time at rest, it becomes abundantly clear that the space rushing ahead of light would imply the space going faster than time and that it must be forming loops around itself which is absurd and is not what is being observed.
Still, the unity of light is contrary to that of time only at super-nonluminal velocities. Space and time at other velocities are disunified and spiral in toward one another.
Now if you take the first letter of each of my sentences, including this one, they comprise the scrambled letters of a word characterizing your posts thus far.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)