I would like to thank Janus and selfAdjoint for their very helpful criticism. It was their arguments against my ideas four years ago that set me clear on the difference between ideas and potentially valuable work. I was convinced, as I have seen so many others since, that my ideas would be so clear to others that they would cheer me on. My first reaction to criticism was to defend my ideas at all costs. It soon became apparent that any well intended, constructive criticism from anyone is in fact the most valuable cheering-on one can hope to find. It just takes time to get past one's ego to see criticism as a necessary and beneficial test of any new idea. So, in a 180 deg. turn of perspective and after four years of critical examination of my own, I would like to ask those of you interested in helping me, to criticize as you see fit, the premise of my work below. I now feel very selfish in asking for what I previously feared. A frame of reference holds no meaning with respect to the equations of mechanics unless it meets the following minimum criteria. A system of coordinates of spatially rigid measures extended on three perpendicular axis of common origin, to which is assigned the property rest. Thus all measures of mechanics will hold to the equations of mechanics because both are quantified with respect to the property rest attributed to the frame's coordinates. Or as Einstein said, "The laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for any frame of reference in which the equations of mechanics hold good". Einstein removed the property of "absolute" rest from the laws of physics and replaced it with the property of any system of coordinates which hold the equations of mechanics good. Because rest and motion are conjugate properties, the equations of mechanics are not quantitatively true statements(upheld) unless one or the other (rest or motion) has been quantitatively defined. If the definition of a frame of reference as the property rest is not provided, removing the property of "absolute" rest renders the equations of mechanics universally arbitrary statements and arbitrary is not at all the same as relative. It is the relative nature of the property rest as attributed to a frame that upholds the equations and allows them to be translated from one frame to another. It is the constancy of light that determines the formula of this translation. "That the speed of light is constant regardless the motion of the source is very interesting, that it is constant regardless the motion of the observer is remarkable". For it must then be constant regardless the source and observer when they are the same frame. This property of light, that it moves away from an observer at the same speed even when that observer is moving at near light speed, is why Einstein considered the constancy of the speed of light "plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity". It is important to realize the ontological significance of this constancy. No matter how clever we may be in designing or discovering the equations that translate the kinematics of this physically real phenomena, we must understand what they mean. At present we do not. In more general terms we must consider the state of physics with respect to this lack of knowledge. In other words, is not enough to sustain the equations of mechanics with respect to the constancy of the speed of light through translatory equations of kinematics. The equations must express dynamics that give rise to the constancy of the speed of light. Put in everyday language we might say, - do not tell me the speed of light is constant "because" time dilates and length contracts, but tell my why time dilates and length contracts without telling me "because" the speed of light is constant.  "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" A. Einstein (Annalen der Physik. 17:891, 1905) Eng, translation.  (I am still sourcing this reference. My best guess to date is John Stachel in a lecture at the Perimeter Institute, 2005.)  "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" A. Einstein (Annalen der Physik. 17:891, 1905) Eng, translation. I have, as I suspect many on this forum, thought long and hard about this question. It is in my opinion, a question that must be answered before any significant progress will be seen again in theoretical physics.