Luis:

R. Stafford's work is, as Harv once noted, about phil 101.

The thing is, he does appear to be right in that phil 101 does provide a solution to physics mysteries?

Basic philosophy it is though:
The definition of words. The telephone exchange problem. Old hat sure; but "old hat" does seem to solve much of modern physics?

"Do you not realize that the statement 'there is no priveleged frame of reference' REQUIRES that all frames be self-referential??? "

Fair comment it appears; but the question is: what IS a frame? Is it already there? Is it constructed self-referentially such that what we call a "frame" is a bunch of "old time" of various ages hanging together like a standing wave?

After all, if the stars you see at night are ancient history, the objects around you in the room right now are slightly ancient history?

So the "frame" is already stretching away from you all around into the past? So with no rigid-now-frame other than the eternal now of consciousness; where does this leave relativity? A new view of it?

The question is: how to interpret just what this "relativity" is?

R. Stafford's thinking is old hat philosophy maybe; but solving physics with an old hat: that seems to be new!

But be my guest and save me some cash: show conclusively he is barking up the wrong tree!
I don't particulary go along with his philosophical ideas; I have a different spin on it.

Stafford's main challenge might be to claim that the reference frames are not rigid; that the only rigid reference frame that qualifies as classical Einstein relativity is a single interaction of two quanta?

4-D space time would be the interaction of two interactions (each containing 2 quanta).

-dolphin