Are relativistic effects only phenomenal?

Einstein’s results are all the effect of messaging

Einstein’s results do not hold for beings as such, but only for beings as perceived by other intra-spatial subjects whose perception depends on material impact.

The temporal order, rate of temporal passing, contraction in the direction of motion, and mass of physical objects as perceived are affected by their motion relative to an observer—true. The relativistic effects result from the constant (and finite) speed of the stuff that signals these events to other bodies that are observers.

What is changed is not an intrinsic event, but only the reported (signal-dependent) event. The changes are a result of the time of knowing things, where things are events and knowing is a function of slow signal motion. Beings themselves are not affected, only the time of their being-for-observers. The changes appear to apply to beings themselves, but they really apply only to beings-as-known.

All beings for other intra-spatial observer-beings experience the weirdness of this mediation of photon messaging. This is because there is no being for these observers except by empirical presentation, which means bodily impact by matter. These changes feel observer-independent because, for intra-spatial observers, nothing exists (for them) prior to presentation. Presentation depends on the delivery of any package of information about the topic object. This object can throw-off particles (smell, taste) or make pressure waves if you submerge it in liquid (sound)—or it can emit (or reflect) photons.

The relativistic effects arise because existence of things for intra-spatial observers is dependent on some meddlesome preconditions: (1) that only presented existents are present to us as existent, (2) that presentation requires messaging that takes time, and (3) that the speed of the fastest messenger is always the same, no matter how the observer is moving. Put slightly better:

  1. Reality is presented receptively. Beings are only by reception from the external. Beings (for us) are beings for us. Being for embodied observers requires impact with one of our receptive fields. (So the messenger does not bring us an accurate report; its “report” is the effects on our body from the impact.)
  2. Reception takes time. Events do not appear at the moment of their occurrence, but only after some messenger material has travelled from the event place to the observer place.
  3. Photons have fixed velocity. No material messengers can travel faster than c.

How deep do these run?

If we remove the messaging condition, what then? Can we ask about the messenger-independent occurrence of events? Message-dependent being only holds for intra-spatial observers. But we understand this messaging situation in an imaginary theater where ontic presentation is immediate (where being and appearing are simultaneous). For a God-like being who intuits all events in real space with the same immediacy, the messaging requirement likewise disappears.

Do not think that the 3-space view is exhaustive, or the view of the totality. Einstein’s results hold of physical materials only. Being < perceiving < messaging < travel time < slow travel speed. For intra-spatial observers that Einstein is on about, not only the events but also the process of their presentation is restricted by material restrictions.

Material restrictions hold not only of bodies (matter particles) but also the force carriers. This is why the results are so weird. Being is not just being, it is presentation-for, and a function of laws of material motion.

The laws of the though experiment situation are not relativisitic

Let A, B, and C be the names of three places millions of lights years apart in space. The entire universe may be conceived as a sphere and A, B, and C points inside of it, widely spaced. Let A, B, and C also refer to observers at these points. For the thought experimenter, A, B, and C are simultaneously present points.

In this situation, you can declare and intuit any time order for events in these places. You can also extend “event rays” from one to another, in imitation of the photons that convey information. There is no relativity for you from this epistemic position.

Relativistic effects do not hold for the God-like view we enjoy in imagination. In the ideal realm of the thought experiment, the temporal relation of two vastly distant events A and B can be known with certainty—because this relation contains nothing besides what we put in it. But if we then talk about creatures inside that space, we can say,

The poor ignorant creatures at A do not even know that B even exists, since the only existence (for observers at A) is (existence) for observers at A. This “for” is being-before, or presentation for a subject. This presentation happens to be a material process in the A-creatures’ bodies, and its happening is the result of material impact—the impact by something “indicative of the existence of B.” It could be a piece of B (smell, taste) or an emitted (or reflected) photon. It could be a reliable news report from a journalist from place C. But it has to trace to an emission of matter from the body of B.

Einstein’s genius was taking seriously the subordination of the ontic to the epistemic. In the imagination, seeing and hearing are functions of nothing. All spatial and temporal relations are known immediately and with certainty. Einstein simply reminded us: “No! We are not allowed to grant our secure space and time ordering (what Kant calls determinations) to those intra-systemic objects as they are experienced by the intra-systemic subjects.”

But there is a noumenal real that Einstein must acknowledge. Because the restrictions that create the relativistic effects do not hold of beings as such (beings for the thought experimenter), only for beings for whom presentation of being is dependent on signaling—i.e., only for knowing.