owl

Maybe if i just keep repeating.... Yes, There are ten million meters from equator to pole on the surface of the Earth. If you fly by Earth at near 'c' and measure the quadrant to be one million meters, however, that measurement will be an error. Likewise if you "see" the meter rod itself to be ten or fifteen centimeters, that too will be wrong. Different frames of reference will not cause a solid meter rod to shrink, nor the Earth's diameter. This is realism. Earth stays as is, no matter how you look at it. Often repeated measurements verify Earth's size and shape and elapsed time for a rotation and an orbit. SR can not re-invent the world and the cosmos to fit its theories. I am done with this.

Yes! And when physicists/cosmologists say that "physics breaks down" at the "singularity" or at a ball-of-all-there-is,... that "How did it appear/manifest in the first place?"... is a meaningless or invalid question... that is simply the physics version of agnosticism. It is good to admit that we don't know. It is another thing to insist on unknowable magic regarding cosmic genesis. And an eternal, oscillating, Bang/Crunch cosmos does not require magic. (Beginnings and endings are the products of linear thinking.)

The part which acknowledges empirical science including observation of physical processes. It happens every time we put up another satellite with a clock in it. We can safely predict that it will continue to happen.* That, however, does not make ‘time” into something that varies. (The anti-reification philosophy of time.) The latter entails ontology of time, however. Not something you understand or care about. *Note: I don't know the dynamics/mechanics... the "how that works" or what it is about gravity and velocity that slows down clocks. If you do, please enlighten us all. Btw,... "Clocks detect time and it slows down because of relativity'... is not an answer. (That is reification of time.) Agreed, yet again. Never have I argued against the concept of elapsed time as things move, whether oscillating (clocks) or objects moving through space from A to B. See the anti-reification stipulation (...) above. I already have as best I can, repeatedly, like, many times, addressed the direction of Earth’s rotation. Last time: It rotates *counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole* and it rotates clockwise as seen from above the South Pole.* It is important to understand that the above differences in *direction of rotation as seen from opposite poles* does **not** mean that Earth changes direction of rotation. Realism says that point of view or frame of reference does not change the physical nature of whatever is being observed, even though things will look different from different perspectives/frames of reference. I hope this clears it up, because I really can’t think of a better way to explain it.

It ticks in between clicks of the switch while its operator observes an actual event. Then he can say how many ‘seconds’ (conventional time units) it took for the event. At no 'time' did "time" become anthing that might "dilate" or whatever as an entity would. Did you get that the "seconds" are just conventional units of 'time', not little pieces of a thing called "time." Just don't let the ruler travel near lightspeed it or it will shrink and a meter will become very short. What it was measuring, like the quadrant of Earth's surface will remain the same length however, no matter how short the meter rod appears to be. me: No way. We observe clocks ticking at different rates as above... and "measuring" a day to have more or less "elapsed time" according to different clocks in different frames. Realism insists that the elapsed time for an Earth rev does not change just because the clocks recorded more or less "time." Outta here 'til next year. Flip your calendars and synchronize your watches... All at sea level on the equator, preferably!... oh, and don't forget the timezones. "It IS now" at the 'same time' everywhere. Don't get confused by conventions and variable "measuring devises."

This looks very much like what a 'jerk' might say, given that I accept some of the obvious contributions of relativity and reject others, like "length contraction, time dilation and curved 'spacetime.' But knowing the difference would require some level of discernment that it's not "all or nothing", black or white, with accepting relativity theory. This to the general conversation: About clocks "measuring time"... Amp-meters *measure* the power in the wire/system. Photographers often use "light meters" to *measure* light intensity for shutter settings. We can all think of many other "meters" that *measure* various things/forces, etc. So, if a clock were a "chronometer" it would *measure time* in the sense the physics argument here is presenting... minus 'what time is'... the ontological analysis. The latter is here-in above presented... yet again. Meters as measuring devises. Clocks don't *measure* anything. They just "tick"... at different rates in different environments/dynamics.

This would be false if I agreed that “time is that which clocks measure.” I don’t and have explained how that it is a tautology, not a definition of the "nature and properties of time” which it would have it were an entity with properties, which it isn’t. (De-reifying time, as it were.) I also said: Do you have an explanation for how “time passing more slowly” is detected by clocks, which then,” measuring time” as they are presumed to do, slow down accordingly? And how about that "explanation of how gravity works?” Oh, right, “mass curves ‘spacetime’.” Physics doesn't give a rat's ass how it works or what spacetime is. It's all in the math. A fast moving clock ticks more slowly than one moving more slowly. (X 500 times repeated or so.) "It takes more what?" What is this mysterious thing, "time" which passes by a clock to be detected and measured? We can observe the variation in clocks. What do we observe when we declare that something has happened to time? You are blind to what the ontology of time seeks to understand about "it," or to debunk it as a reified entity. You should re-read the paper you introduced on the "Bad Habits" of physics, including reification. I agree with his philosophy... if not his ten dimensional cosmology. And it is not just my ideology that time is an artifact of measurement, not 'something' in the real world, "passing" differently in an infinite number of locations and frames of reference. Whether Earth changes shape with observation... or, alternatively, we can not know its "true shape" because it doesn't have one... is quite relevant to science. Of course you do. I taught philosophy of science. You disdain philosophy. Meanwhile you believe that the world is as we see it, from different, extreme frames of reference. So an Earth with a 1000 mile diameter, as seen from you- know- what frame is just as valid as a spherical world as seen from you-know -where. Up close and at rest is better for an accurate description of the "true shape of the Earth." But, of course, philosophically you don't believe that there is a "true shape of Earth," cuz it depends on how you look at it... a "lame" philosophy. And you believe that the distance between stars varies* (“length is not an invariant”) with how fast a frame of reference might be traveling between them. *(... or we can not know the 'actual' distance between them, depending as it does on observational frame... there is no 'actual distance.') Believe what you want. Older post follow up: me: Cap ‘n R: This is tedious. We all know that they will "tick" at different rates. Over and over, I say that time is not 'something which clocks detect and measure...', so there is no "correct measurement of time" above. Get it yet? Never mind. It's ontology of time. Not your field of interest or expertise. And there is no use wasting my time debating your other points if you don't get this one.

michel: If the premise is that something can not come from nothing, then energy/matter has not emerged from nothing. There was no “beginning” and there will be no end. Cosmos is eternal if there was no magic beginning out of a void and no ending... like entropy ‘destroys’ everything. It wouldn’t. If it all just disperses, then there will be no more organized universe. It runs down and scatters out. What a waste, for one thing. Re-cycling is a good idea on all levels. What if we all just had one allotted orgasm?... one Big Bang? Admittedly not a scientific argument. Just a little off the wall musing on a one shot cosmos.(Not ‘philosophy of science.’) But I would not create a one time Bang universe. A waste of matter and energy. I would recycle energy/matter. Our little arguments against a cyclical cosmos do not preclude the possibility. More matter for gravity will be “found”, I think. More found all the time. And the bending of light argument against that cosmology needs a lot of work. (The critic knows who he is.)

Swansont: Realism as a philosophical perspective asserts that events in nature do not need to be clocked and compared between two frames of reference ‘clocking’ with different rates of “ticking.” Different rates of ticking do not measure different rates of "time passing." Relativity sorts that out fine for practical application, but duration of natural “real world” events does not depend on the variations in observers’ clocks. Sorry you can not comprehend the difference. Swansont: We all need an explanation of why/how clocks slow down at higher speeds and in higher gravitational fields. We could all use a good explanation of how gravity works too, without inventing more metaphysical metaphors. Swansont: Since none of us knows how/why speed and gravity slows down clocks... you assume that something called time slows down and that clocks, being somehow detectors of time, measure that “dilation,” as it is commonly misnamed. Get a grip on what ontology of time is about. Or stick to physics and forget about the meaning of the word “time.” It is, after all, just ”that which clocks measure,” according to physics. And that is good enough for physics, because it doesn’t matter ‘what it is.' And Einstein thought it was a sufficient definition too; so who are we to argue? He and Minkowski theorized that mass curves spacetime, and it has been the guiding axiom of GR ever since. (Who gives a rat's ass what 'spacetime' IS?) me: You: Since time is not an entity but just an abstract concept (event duration), “it”does not “pass.” Things move (including but not limited to clocks’ dynamics’,) and that ‘takes time.’ There is nothing “passing” (time.) Clocks tick and everything moves around. There is no “time passing” in a sense that “it” can pass faster or more slowly. It is NOT about how we measure distances or time. The universe has a life/reality of its own which does not depend on the equations of relativity and the frames of reference which we humans can imagine. I am tiring of this debate. There are no philosophers here to understand what I said in this post. Math rules without relationship with the real world. Models in the mind rule. They need no reality referents. Science is becoming just another mind game (philosophically speaking, of course.0 I am ready for a leave from this nonsense. The “corner" is your myopic vision projected onto me (a psychological diagnosis)... Specifically that the cosmos is in your (physics’) head. Earth does not change shape according to how you look at it. (Idealism.) Neither does the distances between stars. Length contraction is based on extreme frames of observational reference as valid descriptions of the world. It has perverted objectivity to assert that reality IS as we see it... from very extreme frames of reference. This is not the science which strives to “know the world” as it is. But Einstein said so, so who are we to question.

No. But a metaphor which is consciously used as such does not claim natural world properties for abstract concepts... like time is something that clocks measure. I beat this point to death already, but it is lost on you. What do clocks detect and measure? Nothing. They just "tick," and we say how many ticks there were as some observed event happens... say as the clock travels from A to B and a surface vehicle travels from C to D, and the two events are precisely synchronized. Yes, GPS works very precisely. But "time" does not slow down in either case. Clocks do. You confuse "the rate at which time passes" with the rate at which clocks tick, and you have so little understanding of the ontology of time that you don't know the difference. No one yet knows the actual force/mechanism which slows clocks down when their velocity increases, yet you challenge me to answer it. What makes the force of gravity work? Same answer. So GR invents a magic, non-existent, abstract, metphorical, metaphysical 'whatever' and claims that mass makes "it" curve. Btw, let's just call it "spacetime" and represent "it" by a sagging rubber sheet distorted by mass. (No reification there!) It's called repeatability. The measurements and results have been repeated uncountable times and are known within precise parameters for both the polar and equatorial diameters. What do you have to show an alternative, say that an Earth with an 8000 mile polar diameter and a 1000 mile equatorial diameter (as 'seen' from the near 'c' fly-by frame) is correct? I have asked a lot of questions (with very few answers) about all the different frames of reference from which the speed of light can measured. I think the invariance of 'c' (relative to what, etc.) deserves a thread of its own. If there is one already, please give me a link. (I have studied the classic and more contemporary experiments verifying constant 'c', yet i have more questions about experimental design. Consider this: SR claims that traveling near 'c' in a spaceship between here and the closest star will make the distance between here and there shorter, because of length contraction based on the invariance of lightspeed. It seems to work out for mathematicians, but the problem is that the cosmos does not rearrange itself... stars becoming much closer together, etc., just because a ship travels very fast between them. Here again, astronomy knows the distance to Alpha Centauri. That distance does not contract to accommodate SR's length contraction theory... as in "for space travelers the distance gets shorter." (Yes, their clocks will slow down and they will probably age more slowly. This is not time dilation, making time into something. And if their clocks show less elapsed time than Earth clocks, this does not mean that the distance traveled got shorter. But this is ontology, and i do not expect you to understand. You are a length contraction idealist. This is a major discrepancy between the interpretation of theory (and its math) and the cosmos as existing in and of itself objectively.

Don't hold your breath. You know I don't speak math. I do, however, speak philosophy of science. Do you? What is the difference between asserting that time dilates and asserting that clocks slow down? Ans: One reifys time and the other doesn't. Guess which is which. "Earth is flattened" differs from "Earth appears flattened" in that the latter attributes an intrinsic shape to a real Earth independent of observation. The former confuses IS with APPEARS. Realism asserts that it may appear as shaped differently from different frames while it doesn't actually change shape. It isn't actually flattened, even though it might look that way. Earth is nearly spherical, not very oblate. Everyone but length contraction believers, a special focus of relativity theorists, know that in every sense of the phrase, "to know."

I agree with you here. Especially with this 'it's all about how we see it' philosophy. michell: I agree. 'How we see it is how it is'... is idealism. But now the Cap ‘n asks me to define “is.” (Another thread.) What it is vs how we see it. Pretty simple but so hard to see. Found a little more 'time' to reply. Yes. But the language of "something" and "nothing" has such different meaning in different cultures. The most simple meaning is that nothing is the absence of any 'thing'; i.e., no 'thing.' But now we must define "thing." A quagmire of linguistics. Physics in general does not 'believe in' emptiness, no-thing-ness. I will not vote for that choice either. Another way to say that, I think, is that many choices (DNA adaptations, whatever in the case of known lifeforms) have made the universe what it is. It is no longer about what it would have been with other circumstances.

Just read the thread. One of my favorite subjects in cosmology. Seems like the game is over in my philosophy thread, so I'd like to play here, if it's not over yet. davef, #2: Exactly. And if the latter is literally incredible magic, the cosmos is/has been/will remain eternal... no beginning or ending. A cyclic cosmos (with many unanswered questions, of course) makes best sense then as the Big Picture, in my opinion, because “it all” had to come from somewhere and could not just sit there as a singularity or a ball-o-everything waiting for the show to “begin.” View PostJustinW, on 23 December 2011 - 12:21 PM, said: This denies the universal law of conservation of energy/matter... that it can neither be created nor destroyed but only changes form. Who re-wrote that law of physics? daveF post 32: ... That has been one of my pet peeves for many years. If the laws of physics melt down at "singularities" and such... or at ground zero and time zero of the Bang, then we must just ignore the question, "Where did it all come from?" But curious minds will not ignore such a major cosmological question... even if we can not answer it definitively. As I've said before, "something out of nothing" is the same cop out as the religious belief that it all came out of god's Magic Hat.

So "for the near 'c' fly-by", the experience of seeing a flattened Earth validates that it is flattened. It has no "true shape," and the flattened image is not just a distortion requiring correction to reflect "reality." (And the tree falling in the forest makes no sound unless it is "heard." Reality depends on observation. Idealism.) So you insist that an Earth with a 1000 mile diameter is an "accurate measurement." As you have said, (paraphrased) Earth IS flattened, for the fly-by guy. Diagram the sentence. It asserts that Earth is flattened. But it isn't. It is just experienced that way... which is a distorted image. Cap ‘n R: me: In summary, the essence of the debate here on the philosophy of science pertaining to the length contraction aspect of relativity is very clear in this exchange. I’m willing to leave it there. me: ... Cap 'n R: (my emphasis added.) Idealism. How it is observed determines it's shape. me: Enough already.

Lots of catch up here... where to start... where to finish? Maybe in most general terms. I did my best. I'll try again. Yet again, it is not about 'owl realism or owl idealism.' That is the false attempt here to make this thread my personal philosophy. It is not. I did say right up front that contemporary philosophy of science is not about Spinoza's categories, as Feynman would have it, or about 'the meaning of life,' etc., etc., as Hawking would have it... both 'strawman' examples of philosophy as irrelevant to modern science. Modern scientific realism knows that Earth's direction of rotation does not change with whatever perspective from which it is observed. For openers, do you understand this so far? Same principle for Earth's orbit around the Sun... established in the early birth of this solar system... not reversing with various 'as seen from' "subjective perspectives"=frames of reference in this contemporary application of idealism to relativity. Your snide sarcasm does not promote communication here. Last prompt on that before I quit with you. It is 'idiotic' to believe that Earth changes its direction of spin with perspective of observation, i.e., yet again, 'seen as' counterclockwise from above the North Pole and clockwise from above the South Pole. If you haven't the capacity to understand this, then i will not continue to try to explain it to you. So, did you understand my fourth or so repeat above or not? Final repeat: It's direction of rotation does not change with whether it is observed from above the Antarctic or Arctic Circle... and labeled "clockwise" or "counter-clockwise," respectively. Still plugging along one piece at a time... for basic relevance. Cap 'n R: It is about "Is there a 'real world', an Earth with a 'true shape' or not? This is a concern of philosophers of science. We should call the "1000 mile" theoretical measurement of Earth's equatorial diameter (your thought experiment) "inaccurate", because it is actually closer to 8000 miles, as verified by an overwhelming body of close up measurements. (But I've said this dozens of times before.) Cap ‘n R, 294: me: You: No, you don't. If you want to know the circumference of Earth in order to fly around it in a jet, a practical application in the real world, you will plan for enough refueling to fly about 25,000 miles. That is the circumference of the 'real world,' like it or not. me: Cap 'n R: Idealism. How it is observed determines it's shape. Cap 'n R: So, as administrator of this science forum you don’t care about the “true” nature/shape/diameter of Earth, the “actual” distances between cosmic bodies, or the “intrinsic” length of measuring devises; because all of that, you believe, is dependent on ‘subjective’ (frame dependent in this context) observation. This is just to establish that the basis of your belief is a modern version of idealism as applied to relativity. That was my point all along. Whether or not that is ‘‘idiocy’ is a philosophical judgement. Maybe Earth “IS” very oblate with a diameter of 1000 miles. In whose universe?? Oh, right, “for” the guy flying by at near ‘c.’ Got it.

Well, there we have it, finally acknowledged! There is no 'real Earth' independent of observation according to the Cap 'n of this science forum. It all depends on how we look at it. This, for everyone's information, is a form of idealism: It's all subjective, with the caveat that subject = frame of reference here, however abstract. If "three dimensional" was an important qualifier, please explain how other "dimensions" (besides time... yada yada) are verified as accurate descriptions of 'the world', not just mental models for math without referents.... like M-theory's eleven dimensions... to which you do not, apparently subscribe. Just give me one more axis describing space, if you can, besides the well known three dimensions. If this question is confusing, please study the Kelley Ross paper on the Ontology and Cosmology of Non--Euclidean Geometry if you haven't already. (Frequently cited in support of my Euclidean based argument.) The irony of ontology is that it tries to sort out the differences between merely metaphysical concepts and what the hell they might refer to in the "real world" that science/physics/cosmology is here to describe and clarify as true knowledge about it (the 'real world.) But you continue to deny a 'real world' as if it is all in our brilliant homosapient heads! If i have this wrong about you, please explain how.

Not true. Why clocks slow down in above circumstances remains an unknown. Claiming that shapes and lengths vary with observation is idealism, philosophically speaking. Realism claims that things might appear different 'as seen from' different frames, but that they don't actually change... like Earth getting flatter or closer to the sun... or a solid meter rod shrinking, as it might appear from extreme frames. Claiming that "time slows down" reifys time, while simply acknowledging that clocks tick more slowly (as above) is direct observation without reification of time. Every time introductory GR "explains" that "mass curves spacetime", the latter is falsely reified, and students will nod and repeat it on tests. If it were just called Factor X in the equations, science would become honest and the error of reification would be eliminated. Sorry the point is lost on you. Then quantum mechanics could call its version of gravity "Factor Y" and eliminate the search for the elusive and metaphysical "graviton." Of course, in neither case is there an explanation of how mass attracts mass... or bends light... at a distance. Yes, exactly... " a 'tick' (is) a physical process that has a duration? But then you say, "With your definition of time, clocks still measure time." No. They 'tick' while natural physical processes observed happen. When the observed focus on a "duration of a physical process" is over, we can say how many 'ticks' coincided with the process observed. So many ticks for a full rotation of Earth, for instance. But the clocks in orbit will record fewer ticks than those on the ground... and those at different altitudes (gravity fields) will also vary during one Earth rotation. So relativity does an excellent job of adjusting for all those differences to make good sense and achieve precision of location (for GPS units) in all cases. All that does not require that "time dilates." Good.I hope you enjoyed the above reiteration. To my point... Do you or do you not think that Earth has an intrinsic/objective shape independent of observational frame of reference? If you do, then what frame would you "prefer" from which to measure it and describe its "true shape?"

Cap ‘n R: Earth science textbooks saying that its shape varies from quite flattened to almost spherical... or that it can not be known since all possible frames of reference are equally accurate... would be one “consequence.” Ydoaps: Applying reason, we find the frame closest to at rest with objects observed, which will reduce unknown variables (like whizzing by at near ‘c’) to a minimum. YoadaPs: I think that giant Earth- sized calipers “sizing it up” from a few million opposite points on the surface would be best.... or holes drilled through its diameter and lengths measured by laser. But precise measurements taken from various orbits (same altitude in all cases) will have to do meanwhile. Schrodinger’s hat: No. Just the opposite, as repeated already several times in answer to TAR above. Yet again, the direction of Earth’s orbit around the Sun does not and never has changed. How we would see it from which perspective is the argument from idealism: that reality is determined by observation from different frames of reference. (“clockwise from here; counter-clockwise from there.”) Me, starting with first repetition above: Italics added. The 'as seen from' perspective does not mean that the direction of rotation (or orbit) changes, but that the perspective changes. So this is the third repetition of my answer to TAR’s and now your question.

I'll just start at the top (about claiming expertise) and work down to catch up here. I was hired by a university (to remain anonymous because I place a very high value on anonymity and confidentiality)... to teach a course entitled "Logic and the Scientific Method" in the philosophy department. I did not have a doctorate, but neither did the dean/head of the philosophy department, but he was brilliant, and so was I. They say "size doesn't matter"... or IQ scores, but they do in the context of ones academic work...essays, papers and GPA in higher education. I had studied science since I was old enough to be interested... at quite an early age. I had studied philosophy and logic in college and knew the principles of "the scientific method." Long story short, I taught the class, and it was both popular and cited for merit by the dean, who was my personal academic adviser. So, yes, I claimed expertise in that specific subject. I also taught 'special courses' (for the gifted, not the retarded, just to be clear) in the psychology department. (Yes, my adviser was in the philosophy dept, tho my degrees were in the psychology dept. If this is confusing, that is not my problem.) Next point: I will get to "the discussion at large"... maybe later. I don't think your love of sports without expertise is relevant to my love of science with the expertise I had to teach the course. I have probably said this over a hundred times in this forum, but here it is again for those who will not hear it: I do not claim relativity is false. I've praised its relevance to GPS systems over and over... always ignored by Swansont. I claim that "length contraction," "time dilation" and spacetime (as a malleable medium) is false. If it bends, curves, expands (space specifically) has shape and guides objects in curved paths, 'whatever it is', it is presented by GR as a malleable medium. ("Mass curves spacetime.") If it is just an abstract coordinate system, then the curvature is a mental construct, not part of the "real world" which physics describes. Another hundred or so times I have said that time is *duration* of physical processes. (*Elapsed time, whether "clocked" or not.) Clocks are built to be very steady 'ticking' devises, not time detectors/measurers. Some here know the difference and some don't. (You, Swansont, don't.) Clocks don't "measure" anything. They just 'tick.' They tick more slowly at high speeds and in high gravity fields. I don't know 'why' and neither does relativity theory. Back to continue as "time permits.' *I answered that already.* It doesn't matter how any observer looks at it. The real Earth orbits (and has always orbited) the real Sun in the same direction since the solar system came together from natural gravitational processes. Ditto *...* above. I said that from one side of the ecliptic (look it up if unfamiliar) the orbit would be clock-wise and counter-clockwise from the other side of the ecliptic, as seen from 'above the sun' on either side... no "top" or "bottom" implied. Just above the sphere in whatever direction from its center... as with 'above the Earth' in whatever orbit or above whatever surface location. You, like others want to make this personal. It is not. I speak as a realist against idealism as a shared philosophy of science among many like minded whom I have quoted. There are no "Owl Idealists." Owl thinks that idealists are idiots. They think that the shape of things and the distances between them (and the length of a meter rod) all vary ("Length is not invariant!") with the frame of reference from which they are observed. They claim that the invariance of 'c' proves that everything else varies with frame of reference. Any realist will say that Earth's shape does not vary with observation. Same for the distance to the Sun or to other stars. See clarification 'above' on direction of orbit and previously on direction of Earth's rotation. Neither changes with from where it is observed. The latter obviously (from polar orbit satellite observation) rotates counter-clockwise as seen from 'above' the North Pole and clockwise as seen from above the South Pole. The discouraging thing for me is that i said all this before and you simply did not comprehend it. I will soon quit replying to your posts if you still don't understand what I repeated above.

YdoaPs: I haven’t refused to answer. You have refused to hear. In the case of Earth’s shape, or any other shape or distances between objects, the best option is as close as you can get, meaning the at-rest-frame with the objct of observation. Your other options will introduce unknown variables like “how constant exactly from all possible frames of reference is lightspeed itself”... the supposed ultimate constant? (Just questioning, not answering. Look at light’s pseudo-mass, called “momentum.” And how can massless “particles/waves” push solar sails, the solar wind? There are unsolved mysteries here. Let’s not pretend that we know all about light. We know its velocity. We don’t know how it pushes on things (sails, laser gun recoil, the box of mirrors.) We don’t know how mass pulls on it, though we know that it does. (Or, “curves space”... another option.) Just a little ‘christmas eve philosophy.’ Off to the family gathering. A “process” suggestion: Let’s keep it honest first and civil if possible. All these personal attacks do not serve our mutual interest in science.

Ps; for the record regarding Swansont's false assertion: I have frequently "admitted" to being a non- mathematician. I have always claimed to be an *amateur scientist.* That literally means 'one who loves science' but not a professional. Apparently Swansont equates being a scientist to being a mathematician and thinks that love of science doesn't matter without the credentials and the profession. No need for an apology. We passed beyond that kind of civility long ago.

That still leaves us with the challenge, are length contraction and time dilation based on idealism (reality depends on observation) ? If so, there is no ‘real world’ independent of observation. Realism claims that there is. My claim is that the at rest frame yields the most accurate description of that world, be it shapes of objects (diameters) or distances between them (Earth to Sun or to Alph Centauri.) If you had a life or death choice to make based on your answer to “What shape is Earth?” (posed by realists who say it has an intrinsic/objective shape), what would you say? If you say “if you are flying by very fast, it “*is* severely oblate; and if you are in orbit it *is* almost spherical... you will die, because the answer is based on an Earth with an *actual shape of its own*... which science determines by choosing the best frame from which to observe it. TAR: I made no assertion about the North Pole being the “top of Earth.” “Above” Earth in both cases is sufficient to make the point, which was about the direction of its revolution on its axis, not about its orbit. But you could apply the same argument from “above the sun” on either side of the plane of the ecliptic. It would not change the direction of Earth’s orbit. This is a silly diversion. Earth’s spin and orbit do not need labels relative to observational perspective like clockwise from here, counterclockwise from there. Point is, the dance (spin and orbit) in the real world is as it is regardless of our perspective and which “wise” we use to describe it metaphorically relative to an analog clock. Ydoaps: Try to understand the difference between these two statements: A: Earth’s shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed. B: The appearance of Earth’s shape depends on the frame of reference from which it is viewed. I do not dispute B. I dispute A. I dispute the claims that it either changes shape or that we can not know its shape. Y: My answer does not require playing your game, because in the real world (asserted as a realist as the basis of my argument), ‘A’ above is false and ‘B’ above is true. The variability of *appearances* is already granted. Likewise with the assertion that the distance between stars varies with observational frames of reference. It’s quite a fanatical assertion (of relativity) that the distance between Earth/Sun and Alpha Centauri *actually* “contracts”,i.e., *is* way less than the standard astronomical 4.3 light years under any observational circumstance. As my detailed thought experiment on that case demonstrated, it was the ship’s clocks which slowed down so that “it” and its passengers “experienced” less elapsed time than those they left behind on Earth. Earth orbited the Sun 8.6 during their round trip. So then take the reciprocal of slowed down clocks (misnamed “time dilation”, reifying time) and you have contracted length, a very shortened distance to our neighboring star. But that does not mean that our system *actually* (in the “real cosmos”) moved way closer to our neighboring star. That would require adherence to idealism: that observation creates/changes reality. Realism does not grant that kind of power to observation by high speed interstellar travelers. Yes, as one who has in fact taught experimental design, I do claim that an at rest frame with that which is observed/measured will give the more accurate measurements than the near ‘c’ frames so popular among length contraction advocates as equally valid descriptions of objects/distances observed. me: You: Please refer to the recently discussed paper on science's “bad habits,” one of which is reifying time. I have beat it to death already in many threads. Clocks do not “detect” something mysterious called time and then measure “it.” They just “tick”, and that slows down at high speeds. I am not here theorizing about why high speed (or higher gravity fields) makes clocks tick more slowly. Tripolation: You can not be serious! The Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment simply demonstrates that we can not know which (dead or alive) until we open the box and examine the cat. The cat was alive when put into the box, but there was a lethal mechanism in the box, if I remember correctly, which the cat may or may not have tripped. I've made a mess of editing. sorry.

Ydoaps: I used to think that your arrogance and condescension were disgusting. Now I have learned to take it with a grain of salt, and now it just varies between annoying and humorous. Modus tollens applies to *evidence of absence.* Of course science can prove that there is no cat in a box, if in fact the absence of a cat is verified. (Apologies to Schrodinger... whether a present cat is dead or alive will not depend on the observation, tho it will confirm the fact one way or the other.) But science can not in fact prove the non-existence of a disputed entity like “god.” So, now to the example at hand. *Absence of evidence* is the basis of my claim that there is no evidence that Earth drastically morphs out of its *well documented* (a major body of evidence) nearly spherical shape. Swansont: I have never disputed that GPS works. I’ve disputed that time is a thing that slows down. Clocks slow down in orbit, so the part of relativity that deals with that compensates (very well, btw) for all the differences between satellite clocks and the surface clocks that use these very accurate compensations for guidance. (Edit: Sorry, I know that GPS does not depend on clock comaparison with the GPS units on the surface. Just so i don't have to deal with another trivial distraction from my point here... that Earth does not morph, and that we can know its shape, very precisely, even without relativity's "help.") You have ignored me on the above constantly. I think I know why. My guess is that you don’t know the difference between clocks slowing down and the bogus concept of time slowing down. I have explained the difference dozens of times in many threads. Interrupted. Back to finish asap. Swansont: It is not about me. That math does not confer understanding is Ross's general philosophical assertion as an astute philosopher of science. 'Understanding what?,' is the ontological inquiry that you can not seem to grasp. Do you understand that Earth does not change shape under the scrutiny of observation from variously devised frames of reference? (Shape here meaning *length* of its diameter... here in dispute.) Or... do you believe that we can not know its shape, as the other alternative... which you insist is a false dichotomy. (No answers to what other alternatives you would pose.) Gone again... piecemeal here for my part in replies.

Cap ‘n R: In logic, one can not prove the negative. For instance, science can not prove there is no god. The burden of proof is on believers to prove there is. Science has done an excellent job of ‘proving’ that Earth is nearly spherical and exactly how trivially oblate it is. If you claim that a severely oblate shape is equally valid, or that it changes shape then you would need to show evidence of that. TAR: To the case in point, looking at Earth from above the North Pole, it is rotating counterclockwise, while looking from above the South Pole, it is rotating clockwise. But no one (practically) is stupid enough to believe that it changes direction of rotation. This is a bogus argument, Tar. ... a lot like the claim that if we could observe Earth from a frame flying by at near lightspeed and it appeared very oblate, that would be just as valid a description as the extremely well documented nearly spherical shape observed from at rest with Earth. Swansont: The *actual* shape of Earth doesn’t. “Actual” in this context means that Earth’s shape is intrinsic, in and of itself (as per realism), and it does not change with extreme changes in frames of reference from which it is measured; at rest with Earth being the most accurate measurements... if anyone were actually wondering how to most accurately measure it ... Hmmm... from orbit or flying by at near ‘c’?.... tough choice! A straight answer to a previous challenge would have ended the debate: me: ... And I already answered your ‘what color is the sun?’ question. Here it is again: The reality of the cosmos does not depend on how we observe it*, according to realism. It does according to idealism. You claim the latter, as in the claim that length varies with observation. *Science's job is to always find the best way to observe whatever is being observed/measured. For newcomers: I used to teach a college undergrad course including a section on experimental design, which made me somewhat of an expert on the subject. I have given many examples of the italicized above, which are all conveniently ignored. Here again is one of my latest: Ps; re: Your "translation" totally misses the main point. The whole piece is philosophy of science applied to the primary assumptions inherent in non-Euclidean geometry and resulting cosmology. The ontology is obviously over your head. The philosophy pertaining to math was well summarized as follows: When the conceptual meaning of length contraction insists that Earth drastically changes shape (or, alternatively, that we can not know its shape because of frame of reference *variation*), then philosophy is required to bring perspective to a clearly false assumption.

No. Earth's diameter does not vary, even though the dictum/dogma of length contraction insists that "length is not invariant,"i.e., that it varies with how it is observed... which is idealism. No. Earth stays the same shape (which is well known in science) even if we look at it from a high speed frame of reference... which may well distort the image, though you have often denied such distortion and claimed that a very oblate Earth is an equally valid description with the extremely well observed, measured and documented "nearly spherical" description. Of course, you base your claim on the relativity dogma that "there are no preferred frames of reference," even though the at rest frame of observation has the fewest unknown variables and the squished Earth you advocate as equally valid is totally false and absurd.

me: Swansont: Will someone please explain to Swansont that claiming "length is not invariant" means that length varies! "Not invarient" means variable. The claim is that Earth's diameter, an example of length, is variable with observational frame. I can guess why he doesn't get this, but it would be rude. So, speaking of Earth's diameter as the length in question, he is insisting that it varies. This means that Earth changes shape drastically, depending on frames of reference. But science knows quite well what Earth's diameter is, both polar and equatorial, and it doesn't change, no matter how many times Swansont repeats the dogma "length is not invariant." (spelling edit.) Good grief... and this is a science forum!