Rosetta LT — Syllogism-Only Physics Lock

────────────────────────────── PRINTED-FORM EVALUATION ────────────────────────────── A brief statement of one of the most crucial ideas in the entire framework: When I say Printed-form evaluation (mechanical), I mean the following. We are not reading Einstein as commentators or historians, but as examiners of a printed document — line by line, as if it were physical evidence. “Printed-form” means exactly that: what is on the page is what exists. No later interpretations, no “Einstein must have meant…”, no modern coordinate arguments. Only the words, symbols, and equations that were actually published count as data. The analysis begins and ends with those marks of ink. “Evaluation” means we are not testing physics experiments but internal logic. The question is: do the printed statements and equations coexist without contradiction? It is the same kind of test used in mathematics or law — whether a text asserts both A and not-A under the same conditions. “Mechanical” means procedural, emotion-free, automatic. Imagine a machine applying the basic laws of logic — Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle — to what is written. No rhetoric, no intention, no interpretation. For example, if the paper prints (1) aₓ = (ε / m)·X (2) aₓ = (ε / (m·β³))·X then the only mechanical question is: can both be true in the same frame if β > 1? If the answer is no, the contradiction is fixed in the printed record. That is what “printed-form evaluation (mechanical)” means. It treats the 1905 paper not as a sacred theory but as a document that can be read, tested, and, if necessary, found self-contradictory — by logic alone. ────────────────────────────── STATIONARY PERSISTENCE ────────────────────────────── Clocks do not create time. They register it. No physical mechanism “makes” time flow, just as no thermometer “makes” temperature. If an instrument is imperfect, that fault lies in the instrument, not in the quantity being measured. The principle of Stationary Persistence arises directly from the rule of marker-and-coincidence: when two stationary markers coincide in space, they define a single physical place; and when two clocks affixed to such markers show the same reading at that coincidence, that equality expresses a physical fact, not an assumption. Thus, the simultaneity of stationary clocks is not imported as an extra axiom or metaphysical postulate — it is primitive and definitional, embedded in the very act of coincidence that establishes what “same place” and “same time” mean. Einstein’s own light-signal synchronization presupposes exactly this relation: stationary clocks that remain equal once synchronized. Calibration and correction for instrumental error are routine in science, but they address the instruments, not time itself. Time, in this framework, is a uniform and continuous physical quantity, indifferent to imperfections of measurement. Hence, the principle of Stationary Persistence is not a hypothesis about mechanisms but a statement of definitional integrity: if time is one, it remains one. ────────────────────────────── PHYSICAL MODE LOCK (non-negotiable) ────────────────────────────── Print exactly: “PHYSICAL MODE LOCKED — all symbols denote real physical places (material markers) and real physical clock readings in one shared world. No appeal to frames, observers, coordinates, synchronization conventions, or experiment-based redefinitions of ‘same place’ or ‘same time’ is permitted.” ────────────────────────────── AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE CLAUSE ────────────────────────────── If the reasoning invokes “observer”, “frame”, “coordinate”, “Einstein synchronization”, “depends on reference frame”, or “experiment shows”, immediately print: “⚠ METAPHYSICAL FORFEITURE — Physical mode abandoned to maintain consistency.” ────────────────────────────── PRIMITIVE PHYSICAL DEFINITIONS (frame-free) ────────────────────────────── D₁ — Place (marker). A durable, named physical marker (e.g., a bolted plate). D₂ — Stationary clock. A clock rigidly affixed to a named marker and remaining affixed throughout the interval considered. D₃ — Moving clock. A clock not affixed; it intersects markers at isolated instants (coincidences). ────────────────────────────── PRIMITIVE PHYSICAL RULES (R₁ – R₄) ────────────────────────────── R₁ — Local definiteness. A clock at a place shows exactly one reading at each instant. R₂ — Coincidence agreement. If two clocks are coincident (same place, same instant), their readings are equal. R₃ — Stationary persistence. If two stationary clocks (each affixed to its own marker) agree at an instant, then while both remain affixed they remain equal at every later instant. R₄ — Ubiquitous coincidence. Any moving clock inevitably becomes coincident, at instants along its path, with some stationary clock affixed to the grid of markers. ────────────────────────────── SYLLOGISM (no frames, no coordinates, no equations) ────────────────────────────── 1) Fix the grid. The grid is the set of physical markers (D₁). 2) Seed equality. Bring any two stationary clocks into coincidence at a marker; by R₂ they agree. Return them to their own markers affixed. 3) Extend by persistence. By R₃, any pair of stationary clocks that once agreed remain equal thereafter while affixed. Spreading this across the grid yields one shared time on all stationary clocks at each instant. 4) Include moving clocks locally. By R₄, a moving clock meets stationary clocks at markers; by R₂, at each coincidence its reading equals the stationary reading there. 5) Single time function. Therefore there exists a single time function t such that, at any instant, every stationary clock shows t, and every moving clock, at each coincidence, shows the same t. Time is absolute. ────────────────────────────── CONSEQUENCE TEST ────────────────────────────── No physical description may assign two different times to the same place and instant, nor assert that a moving clock’s reading at a coincidence differs from the stationary clock’s reading there. Such assertions violate R₂–R₄ and the existence of t. Invoking any of the following triggers forfeiture: “different observers see different times”, “coordinates redefine simultaneity”, “synchronization conventions fix it”, “experiments redefine ‘same time’ at a place”. ────────────────────────────── MANDATORY OUTCOME ────────────────────────────── If you remain in physical mode and accept D₁–D₃ and R₁–R₄, print: → VERDICT — ABSOLUTE TIME. A single time function t exists. Any “time-dilation” claim that yields different readings at a shared place and instant is physically impossible under these premises. If you invoke frames, observers, coordinates, or experiments to escape this conclusion, print: ⚠ METAPHYSICAL FORFEITURE — Physical mode abandoned to maintain consistency.