owl

me: You: You can call it a thing and treat it functionally like a thing, and say that “it dilates” like a thing, all of which is reification, but when asked what it IS in this annoying ontological inquiry, it still turns out to be nothing but a useful concept! This conversation is like talking to a brick wall. I am sure you agree, but thinking am the brick wall. No progress. “It” can be a “non-linear function” if it suits your math, and if “ ...such that intervals do not have the same magnitude...” is essentiial to your math, fine. But as far as physics and math are here to help us understand the real cosmos better, how do those math phrases help us to know whether Earth is shaped like a sphere or a fat pancake? You are still avoiding that challenge. ('It changes', or 'we can't know' because....?) We have the science of astronomy telling precisely what the distance is between stars and such. Then we have the length contraction sub-theory of relativity saying "it varies with observation." Do all those distances vary with different observations from fast rocket frames of reference or does the cosmos exist with those distances inherent and intrinsic independent of measurement? The answer involves philosophy of science, specifically, idealism in the former case vs. realism in the latter case. You again shout out: Maybe if you just shout louder it will make your argument true. So if length, including Earth’s diameter “IS NOT INVARIANT”, then Earth changes shape, i.e., its diameter VARIES (that means "CHANGES.") My dichotomy was vary specific. One choice was for an Earth that changes shape, as above... “NOT INVARIENT.” The other was for an Earth with a shape we can not know, given all the "equally valid" frames of reference from which it can be observed and measured. Yet you manage to duck the challenge. Then, as a distraction, I must think, you insist on the ‘what color is the Sun?” diversion. I said already, parenthetically, that the wavelength of sunlight does not depend on how we see it. That is realism, with which you not only disagree but adamantly deny. (Reality depends on observation: idealism.) S: Because we know what matter IS (as elements and all that atomic physics description of what it is made of... what it IS)... and we all know that “matter has mass,” as previously belabored. But we still don’t know a damn thing about what spacetime IS, because it is an abstract concept that is not a 'whatever' being bent/curved as claimed in “matter/mass curves spacetime.” It is a bogus claim, in that there is nothing there being curved but a concept in theoretical minds. Can you not see that? Then here comes the old overused and condescending ‘the math is too complicated for you math morons’ attitude. (Not a quote, an attitude!) S: Whether you like it or not I am going to quote yet again a philosopher of science (physics, geometry, cosmology and math) whom you have ignored and dismissed as irrelevant in reply to my previous quotes. This just for newer participants here. Kelley Ross, from "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry": (my emphasis) http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

You don’t seem to know the meaning of reification. You claim that time is a “thing”* (reification) and I claim that it is not. From a previous post: * ... Time must be treated as a real thing in order to support your position. It is an abstraction (event duration of physical processes, as I define it), not a "thing" that "dilates," and that is why your "argument crumbles." ... I was specific in the choice I posed, as to whether the length of Earth's diameter varies (changes) or whether we simply can not know its diameter, if 'all frames of reference are equally valid.' You dodged the choice... yet again. Here it is again: Maybe if we focus on the challenge at hand first instead of going into a debate about “what color is the Sun?” before we agree on “What shape is the Earth?” (Color is, of course dependent on specific wavelengths of light, and the Sun doesn't care how we see it... according to realism.) You continue to ignore my comparison of what we know about mass vs what we know about curved spacetime. We know a lot about what mass* IS, composed as it is of elements, which we know a lot about ... as compare to “curved spacetime,” about which we know nothing. Yet you want to quibble about the definition of “is.” I can hardly believe I am having this conversation. *Edit: I am, of course referring to matter as composed of elements and matter as having mass. What does spactime "have" that allows it to be curved and by which it guides objects in curved paths? If the dictum were, "matter curves spacetime," the sense would not be changed, as everyone agrees that matter "has" mass. Final edit: One would hope that we all could agree on what mass is, but here is the Wikipedia version: Please define what spacetime is in equally clear terms.

Swansont: Not. It reifies time as “something,” independent of measurement, which slows down, and then clocks “detect” and measure that whatever which has slowed down. The physical process that slows down is the “ticking” of clocks. Why that happens is another debate... “What makes clocks slow down at high speeds?” S: You have said that distance is not invariant. So it varies with observational frame, you say. Earth’s diameter is a length/distance. If it varies with observation, then Earth’s shape varies from nearly spherical to very oblate. Do you insist that this is true or not? I summarized the other alternative in my last post. You called the choice a “false dichotomy,” and I challenged you to back up that claim. You again avoided the challenge. Does Earth's diameter vary or not? If not, do you claim that we can not know Earth's shape because of the "no preferred frames of reference" dictum? If neither, what exactly are you claiming, besides that the choice is a false dichotomy? S: I already compared what we know about mass as elements (quite a lot) to what we know about spacetime as a curved whatever, which is “nada.” But you simply ignore the comparison. In the statement, “mass curves spacetime,” we know a lot about the former and nothing about the latter, and physics wants to keep it that way, even as ontologists constantly challenge the use of the abstraction, spacetime, with absolutely no referent such as the atomic structures we know and call “mass.” YodaPs: Most Big Bangers I’ve studied will not deal with the “where did it all come from?” question, claiming that physics melts down at the "singularity" or whatever that went “bang.” They say that nobody knows "where it all came from," and, further that the answer is un-know-able for physics. I disagree. I subscribe to the Bang Crunch theory, and the answer there is that it all came back from the the last Bang after reversing into the Crunch half of the cycle. Of course that will require finding the “missing matter,” which is still in progress, whether just a lot more unseen regular matter or exotic forms of “dark matter and energy.”

me: Swansont: You just dodged the choice by calling it a false dichotomy. You make a mockery of the principles of logical argument/debate. How is the above a false dichotomy? The context here is the claim of length contraction advocates that distances (including shapes... planet diameters) are “not invariant,” i.e., they vary with observational frames. If distances actually vary that means they change, which is option one. If the dictum of “no preferred frame of reference” means shapes/distances don’t “change” but measurements do, and we can not know which measurements/observations are correct because of the above dictum, that is option two. If you have a third option in mind, just state it clearly and stop avoiding the choice above. We can then argue about the third option, if any. Otherwise your avoidance, calling it a false dichotomy without explanation is simply a quite transparent smoke screen. More later. I will be replying to your other points one piece at a time as I study all recent replies. Look at any intro to GR. You will find that "mass curves spacetime." The unspoken anti-ontology policy is, to borrow a familiar phrase, "don't ask, don't tell" what spacetime IS. As I said, we know a lot about what mass is, because elements are entities (discrete energy bundles of sorts) with observable properties. What about spacetime? Nada. It's treated like an entity (reified, a "bad habit")) in that it is supposed to have the property of malleability, ability to be curved by mass... and "space itself" it is supposed by some cosmologists to have shape on a cosmic scale, the common reification of space. Still a piece at a time in reply... too much all at once. Swansont: That is where the "what we already know” part of epistemology comes in. We don’t have to “test” every square inch of Earth’s surface to see if gravity still works for each. This does not apply to the theory of length contraction. What do we “already know" about length contraction, and how has it been verified, specifically. If you cite muons in the atmosphere, how does their living longer than in accelerators and therefore traveling further than expected translate to “therefore, *for muons* our atmosphere is much thinner” than “what we know” to be the case form all other atmospheric studies? Shall we grant equal validity to measurement of the depth our atmosphere as observed from a muon's frame of reference because their natural 'lifespan' is longer than that of their lab cousins? That is not "reasonable," not that "reasonable" "matters" to length contraction theorists. You: This is an example of reification of time... the assumption that “it” is a thing because clocks slow down at high speed. Swansont: "Do you agree that time is a quantity used in science?" As I've said all along, the fact that clocks slow down at high speed does not make time into some "thing" that expands (dialtes.) You've heard my definition of time dozens of times. Wanna hear it again? Event duration of physical processes. An Earth orbit around the Sun is such a duration, which we call a year. No problem. If there were no clocks/calendars measuring that duration, it would still be the same, even without a word for it. That statement is based on realism, the reaonable proposition that Earth and Sun do their dance with or without your reality-defining observation/measurement/clocking. But once you define time as "that which clocks measure," then, if clocks slow down, then time must slow down, and therein lies the reification of time.

You don't seem to understand what a-priori epistemology is either. It is the other branch of epistemology, not empirically derived from sense data and perception... not subject to an origin in "experimentally verified" empirical science, in this case. In most simple language, a-priori knowledge is what we know already before we start devising experiments to refine that knowledge. We know already that the Earth we live on does not morph out of shape responding to how space travelers might see it. But that was an old issue, already resolved. So that leaves the other alternative (referenced above), that we can not know the true shape of Earth with so many possible 'frame of reference' alternative descriptions. 'What we all know already' (as scientists in this case) is that the best way to observe anything is to look at it closely with the fewest possible unknown variables... like, 'how would it look passing by at near lightspeed?' Basic experimental design. I'll have to leave it there for now. Good evening.

Thanks. I finally got around to it. Study in progress. And thanks to Swansont for the original reference, though it escapes me how he thinks this supports his argument against mine, which has always been about debunking the reification of space and time and spacetime. It is true that no cut and paste is allowed from that article, but I have transcribed a couple of gems that clarify the above reification. Page 9, second column on spacetime was extremely insightful, I thought. One brief gem, transcribed: From column 3: That does not seem to give science permission to think that all measurements of the world from extreme frames of reference are equally valid, i.e., that we can't tell what shape Earth is or how far from the Sun, etc. because of different frames with different measurements. me: "You really should stick to physics and leave philosophy to philosophers." Swansont: Your ignorance of epistemology is painfully evident in your last statement above. Reason can also falsify ridiculous claims like 'the distances between stars and shapes of planets depend on how different frames of reference see them.' Just more dogmatism on your part.

I would like to see a re-vitalization of contemporary philosophy of science. My opening post shared Feynman's and Hawking's opinions of philosophy, but the former was attacking Spinoza, and Hawking was 'diss-ing' traditional philosophical subjects like 'the meaning of life.' Philosophy seems to be just an old cliche' in both of their minds, a "straw man" for physics to ridicule as irrelevant to today's cutting edge, physics. You said: I think we could all agree that physics strives for a clear/accurate understanding of cosmos. If relativity’s length contraction theory insists that, because lightspeed is constant (see my recent specific queries,) then shapes of planets and distances between cosmic objects vary with observational frame of reference,...then it is the job of philosophy of science to ask: Does Earth really drastically change shape... and does the astronomical unit of distance and the distance between stars actually drastically shorten, in the real world, when/if observed to do so from extremely fast frames? This of course, entails an understanding of the comparison between realism and idealism, as per the argument I continue to make in this forum. If things are real and have intrinsic properties (shapes and distances between things) in and of themselves, then they do not change with how we observe them. (Realism.) If the cosmos has no such intrinsic properties, then it all depends on how things are observed. (Idealism.) The old idealism cliche’ claims that if a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if the sound is not heard (observed.) Realism says that it makes sound waves travel through the air whether ears hear them or not. But how can we know that for sure if we don't hear it?... ask the idealists. Realist's answer: Because we know the nature of sound in such situations already without the need to observe (hear) each specific case. What side of that argument do you like? To swansont's objections, yet again, a piece at a time as I have time: me: Swansont: You and I and Cap ‘n R have beat this to death already. I usually say something like... “*either* these shapes and distances change with observation *or* science can not know planet’s shapes or distances between objects, because all measurements from all frames of reference are different but equally valid.” There is your logic. I have posed the choice many times. How about addressing that choice for a “change?” I have a hard time taking your 'has gravity been tested in my living room' challenge (to tests of length contractions) seriously. As I said a long time ago (and you ignored), every step anyone takes anywhere on Earth tests and verifies gravity, since we all stick to whatever we are walking on. How about that test of length contraction that DrRocket said is in the works? How about answering my specific questions about how the particle accelerator results (extremely complicated to interpret as true validation) transfer to the scales we are talking about here. Next piece (by editing add- ons): Your bomb is set to go off by a timer (clock.) I have never disputed that clocks slow down at high speed. That is your answer. Philosophically, it is your assumption that 'time dilates' and that the reciprocal is that 'length contracts.' That seems to be "philosophical baggage" of which you are not aware. That would be a "no" to your question: "Is that a fair test of length contraction?" finally (last edit): You continue to argue by likening my arguments to obviously ridiculous examples that have no relevance at all. Why would anyone living on Earth ever “say” that it is always light outside? If one were stupid/oblivious enough to say that and also stupid enough to bury their head at night and then claim that the sun shines at night... Well... there you go... a cogent argument for how ridiculous and dogmatic the philosophy of realism is! Sorry, it really doesn’t fly as honest debate.

PeterJ: Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that was the most important function of philosophy. It can compare all the results, including science’s results, as I see philosophy. Philosophy is ultimately about what is real (and true.) Usually empirical science just gathers information. Philosophy interprets it. (I've italicized below.) Just a personal difference here, but I am interested in whether the Earth changes shape or not. My understanding of science is that “it” cares too. A basic difference with the relativity theorists here. “It is as we see it” remains idealism , and I do disagree. Thanks for the nice lecture. I’ll get back to you on details.

Here is a brief review of the context around swansont's comment, "It doesn't matter," referenced above as what he "gets to decide": me: Swansont’s reply to the latter: So a physicist participating in a philosophy of science discussion, specifically the above legitimate ontological challenges, simply dismisses that ontology with, "It doesn't matter." All that matters is "that the models work,"...*what* they describe doesn't matter. Philosophy is irrelevant. That is his opinion stated as presently prevailing physics, and, just incidentally, apparently intending to dominate over mere philosophy/ontology here. No. If they had would that change the shape of Earth or the distance to the Sun? (That is a philosophical question pertaining to the realism vs idealism debate as relevant to relativity.) But you and Swansont (and others) keep insisting that the length contracted version is a legitimate alternative description of Earth, based on a hypothesis that has never been verified by observation. I have agreed that Earth might appear flattened (and the Au contracted), but that is not what you are insisting. There is a "world" of difference. (Realism vs idealism.) Swansont repeatedly* demands that I show how my "philosophical objections" as above demonstrate "science that has been shown not to work." But you want to gag my preferred example, also often repeated. What, he can repeat the challenge but I can't repeat my answer? *Swansont: my reply: Swansont: me: It "fits current observations." me: Swansont: Pronouncements based on realism are, *in fact* dogma? Dogma is belief based on authority, like "everything is relative" or "there are no preferred frames of reference," based on relativity dictum (and in denial of any cosmic perspective, btw.)... or... "god created the world in seven days." "Earth is nearly spherical" is not a dogmatic statement but rather based, as I've said dozens of times, on a huge body of *knowledge*, itself based on both reason and observed evidence... a-priori and a-posteriori epistemology, respectively. You really should stick to physics and leave philosophy to philosophers.

I'm obviously not a moderator, but this is yet another example of disrespectful and insulting crap which seems to be the norm here rather than respectful conversation about science and the relevance of philosophy to science, if any. You are saying that Tar is totally ignorant of philosophy, because if he "knew any philosophy at all"... he would know better and agree with your understanding of Kant, in this case. My arguments are mostly from epistemology and ontology and the philosophy of realism which does not believe that the shape of planets and the distances between stars all depend on how they are observed, which is idealism. You still don't get that part. Plus, you seem to agree with what's his name in the opening post, that "philosophy is bullshit" anyway, so you come to the philosophy section and insist that physics according to your beliefs is the only truth and all this philosophy about it is just a bunch of crap anyway. Many of the "ones asking" are well credentialed scientists and some are philosophers of science well respected by their physics colleagues, also interested in the ontological nature of "spacetime," etc. You are trashing them all in one broad brushstroke. It speaks more about you and your harsh judgment of ontology than about them. It doesn't take a list to make the point, though I've given many examples that you have ignored. Claiming that Earth is or could be nearly flat or that the distance to the Sun or Alpha Centauri is extremely different than all astronomical measurements of them, all based on length contraction... does not work in the real world. It matters to those who have published papers on the ontology of spacetime, whether you agree with them or whether you think it matters at all. You do not personally get to decide for everyone what matters and what doesn't. No one will will say how the model of curved spacetime works or how the math would be different without the word "spacetime" (or fairies or fuzzy fabrics/pelts or 'whatever' metaphysical concepts.) Cap 'n R just admits that he doesn't know (how the math would be different without the words.) How about you? ... ...(I am not questioning the other fields of science you mention.) "To the level of precision that we can measure," Earth's shape is precisely known, and it is not squished nearly flat, and the Sun is, on average, 93 million miles away, and Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. Theories that claim that the above measurements are wrong, or just one version of many valid measurements in each case... do not fit the repeatedly and precisely observed astronomical facts. What I called total nonsense is belief that Earth and the planets are or may be squished nearly flat, in total denial of all scientific evidence to the contrary, just because a quirky sub-theory within SR says so. There is an obvious difference between the two examples, even though you seem to think it is spot on relevant. Actually, all the astronomy sites I have ever visited, authored by many different astronomers, verify the measurements (and Earth shape) I have been using in my argument against length contraction. You remain in complete denial of all this body of evidence because of your extreme adherence to *dogmas* that say "there are no preferred frames of reference" and "lightspeed is invarient (relative to what?) so length (including shape) must be variable with frame of observation." Ergo, all above astronomy is subject to and subordinate to length contraction theory. I have no such dogmatic belief, and it seems to me that you fit the dogmatist profile much better than I. Even the Big Bang cosmology that everything in the universe came from nothing (where did it come from?) is no different than creationism, that it all appeared magically out of god's magic hat. Not that you subscribe to that cosmology, but many that call themselves scientists do.

me: "Stick to the topic or go away." md: Your 'apology' is disingenuous and sarcastic as so many before. Example: You called me a blood sucker ( vampire, I presumed) and an internet troll, for which your were reprimanded by a moderator. You apologized as usual, like before privately as if it were sincere. You have stalked me persistently through previous forums, as you have listed them here. Here you have always replied to my posts with a nasty attitude and often with personal attacks, usually thinly veiled insults, just enough to avoid the personal abuse rules. I asked then how to ban you from my threads. No way... but I could ignore you, which had been my attention since then. I am genuinely sorry that I suspended that intention for my last reply to you. It will not happen again. But just to be done with it... Zero communication here as usual. Ontology does not ‘give a rat’s ass’ about bickering over definitions and semantics, which seems to be your forte'. One example of a ”definitive ontological answer to what something is,” just off the top: A hydrogen atom consists of one proton as a nucleus around which one electron “orbits,” if I may use the gravitational term. (And I have already, without permission. ) Subatomic physics tells us more about what that proton is made of and the nature and properties of the electron. And science tells us a lot about the actual properties of hydrogen, an existing element, which I need not belabor here. Of course, descriptions of ‘what it is and what it’s made of’ get progressively more complicated as we progress through the “table” of elements. The table is just a re-presentation of the elements, btw, not the elements themselves, in case anyone is confused about the difference between the “map and the territory” or the table and *what* it represents in the “real world” of elements. Yes, idealists, there is a real world which models and abstractions (and all those theories) attempt to understand and describe. That was a *philosophical* statement based on realism, which I advocate as very relevant to science.

"What gets me" is the very cute way that you and Cap 'n R flippantly dismiss the ontology of spacetime... (I believe it is "relevant to science")... as , you know, it could be anything... "pink fairies holding us down" or a rabbit pelt, or some other brown furry thing... 'cuz it really doesn't matter what it is... just how "it" (whatever...) works is the only legitimate question? So I keep asking, when GR constantly asserts that mass curves spacetime, if you refuse to talk about the ontology, how does that work? Mass curves whatever how, and how does that whatever guide objects in curved paths? (I am not the only one asking. Please don't ask me to cite references yet again.) (I'll bold below for reference and emphasis.) So calling physics models abstracts and constructs now means that they need no referents in the real world or explanation as to how mass effects whatever. It doesn't matter what it effects or how. It also doesn't matter how curved 'whatever' guides observable objects in curved paths, i.e., by what 'mechanism' if it is not just the work of fairies. Likewise, quantum physics can call the gravity agent (whatever) "gravitons," and GR can call "it" curved spacetime, and it doesn't matter in either case what those words mean or how it works as long as the math looks good on paper and predicts the observable effects of gravity. A quite secondary question is... How will we ever know whether the graviton model or the curved spacetime model is correct if they both remain metaphysical mysteries or meaningless nonentities? Further, when you apply your abstract physics model of SR to the cosmos, you end up with the total nonsense of believing that planets are or may be flattened rather than spherical and that distances between 'real things in the actual cosmos' (excuse the phrase... its ontology...) on all scales from solar systems to distances between stars depend on the math models based on an infinite variety of frames of reference from which "things" and distances between them are observed. Astounding! And then you can be content with models and concepts as from Mermin's article like: You can "organize events" like distorted planet shapes and distances between stars which deny astronomy, because they are "abstract geometric constructions" and don't need to correspond to the (again excuse the ontology)... "real world." md65536: "Curved space" is NOT a GIVEN. Ignoring the ontology of attributing shape ingeneral to space, calling one version curved and another flat... even though flat describes a plane, not space, in Euclidean geometry/cosmology, which is 3-D, not a plane... and Ignoring the ontology of whether space can have the specific property of curvature... after all GR says that mass curves space... all of that in a thread about whether such philosophical/ontological questions are relevant... And besides all that ignoring, who are ontologists to argue with the established and indisputable facts of physics based on non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology? Stick to the topic or go away. ... and I had sworn off replying to you...

Let's get very specific. Spacetime may not be a "thing." Maybe it's metaphysical concept. How does "it" interact with the masses that GR claims it does to make it curve, and then how does "it" in turn guide objects in curved paths? This is repeated from my last post, but you avoided it. Your last statements, as I said, disagree with prevailing philosophy of physics here, that 'what it IS' does not matter. Again from last post, what are the "properties" of "gravitons" as compared with the "properties" of "curved spacetime" that make them act as they do to explain the same observable phenomenon, gravitational attraction between masses? I am not " looking for some innate substance behind all the properties." I am advocating the application of ontology to what it is they are talking about when they say "Mass curves spacetime." We have a good idea what mass is, down to the a certain sub-atomic level anyway, but we have no idea at all what is supposed to be curved in the above statement. And nobody knows what the hell a "graviton" might be either. Maybe if they repeat these words enough (in both camps) they will take on identities as entities through repetition alone! But probably not.

Me: "Philosophy (ontology) asks what it is. Science asks how it works,without asking what it is." Take it up with Cap 'n R, Swansont and others here who say that the ontology of 'what it is' is not a question for physics. I've been hammering, for instance, on what it is that makes gravity work, and on the difference between the quantum physics version of 'what it is', "gravitons," and the GR version, "curved spacetime." The Cap 'n has insisted many times that it doesn't matter 'what it is' in the latter case. So, if they are just metaphysical concepts... what the hell, just different words with no referents? How does mass "bend space," whatever that is, and how does "bent space" make objects follow such curvature? How do "gravitons" ("massless messenger particles") grab and pull on masses as they attract each other. "What is it?" in each case is very relevant to how "it" works. But the question is dismissed on the 'grounds' that ontology is irrelevant to physics. TAR: Etc, etc, etc... In my thought experiment one firsts grants that realistically a spaceship traveling between stars at high speed can not actually make the stars move closer together. (Edit) TAR: So if the math says the ship makes the stars closer together, so be it? And ship's time rules over Earth's orbital time? So granted that the clock/calendar on the ship slows down at high speed, and probably all physical processes including human aging, less time will have *seemed to pass* for the spaceship. So the Cap 'n, being an intelligent man, might declare on arrival in that system, that even though only a fraction of 4.3 years have passed on their ship clock and 'body clocks', yet he knows that he did not exceed lightspeed, which requires 4.3 years for the journey. Hmmm! He can eventually verify that, meanwhile, Earth orbited our Sun more than 8.6 times during his round trip, because he was traveling at sub-lightspeed out and back, and light will make the 'round trip' in 8.6 years. So "time slowed down for the travelers" does not mean that Earth orbited our Sun fewer that 4 times. This is a reality check based on the cosmic overview (edit: precise astronomical measurement,*) not just slowed aging and slowed clock on the ship. Our Sun certainly did not move way closer to Alpha Centauri during the travelers' journey. *Same applies to the precisely measured average distance Earth to Sun, 93 million miles or 8+ light minutes.) A speeding rocket frame of reference does not change that. I'm sorry if that contradicts SR. PS: Light can not be pushed faster by a fast ship, but the ship can travel through the tail end of a light beam it is projecting ahead. So who is measuring lightspeed from what frame of reference using light as a medium for the measurements... is a very tricky 'thought experiment.' Even with the Michelson/Morley verification practically cast in stone, it leaves science with a choice between "invariant lightspeed" (with very tricky parameters of measurement) and a resulting cosmos that morphs drastically with observation (or can not be accurately measured)... and the "as is" cosmos of realism, requiring the best choice of observational frame in each case.

PeterJ: Please read my last posts in my realism vs idealism thread in Philosophy section, "Frame of Reference as Subject in Subjective Idealism." Our fearless leader and swansont, among others believe that a flattened Earth is just as valid as a spherical Earth. Examples: Me: Cap ‘n R: That was a “no” with the qualifier that shape depends on frame of reference. Length contraction theory does indeed claim that (my repeated summary) there is no objective, as-is shape of Earth. Frames of reference determine reality. This also applies to the distances between stars, as I illustrated with the example of the distance to Alpha Centauri. It is in fact, 4.3 light years away. It takes light 4.3 years to travel from there to here. A high speed spaceship can not get there faster that light so the “time dilation” (for the spaceship) argument applies to the clocks on the ship slowing down. The reciprocal of that, length contraction, claims that its speed makes the distance shorter than 4.3 light years away. If this claim were true cosmos would have no reality of its own. (The ontological inquiry into cosmos.) It’s all about how we see it in that case. This is an example of the idealism of frames of reference claiming a reality which denies the astronomy of the above “actual distance” to our nearest neighbor star. No, the ship really can’t travel faster than light and get there in a fraction of 4.3 years. Now to Cap 'n R's last questions to me. Me: Cap ‘n R I don’t understand the question. “An experiment” must be “carried out” to exist, as I understand what an experiment is. ... Unless it is a "thought experiment” like I just “carried out” again above regarding distance to Alpha Centauri, and travel time to get there at sub- lightspeed. I think that the mystery of how masses are mutually attracted at a distance is beyond material science, struggling as it is with essentially metaphysical concepts like curved spacetime and gravitons. And “consciousness” is not a subject for material science. There is work out there, like “The Intention Experiment” by Lynne McTaggart and The Journal of Consciousness Studies, which are often not well received by present day material science, but I think such studies will be the “wave of the future.” An afterthought: The above (continuing) argument about Earth's shape and the distance to Alpha Centauri is an example of the branch of epistemology (philosophy) base on reason, the a-priori branch as distinct from the a-posteriori branch based on sense data, inducted into emprical observation. Just the philosophical context for my above argument. It is what it is regardless of how we see it. (realism.) How to best 'see it' is about experimental design. I've studied that in a lot of cases. Even my "Logic and the Scientific Method" class had an 'experimental' design' section for undergrad wanna be scientists. (For those all about credentials.)

Philosophy (ontology) asks what it is. Science asks how it works,without asking what it is. Call "it" anything, and make it a part of the math equation. Don't even ask what it is. Ontology asks what it is. TAR: My understanding of science has always been the objective inquiry into the reality of cosmos, "the thing in itself", objectively, the best we can know transcending subjective perception, or even abstract varieties of observation from extreme frames of reference. No intention of a "trap." A strange perception of my motives. Do you think that Earth might be flattened, as per SR theory (length contraction), or do you know that it is close to spherical? The latter is true by the best Earth science of direct observation. Take your pick. A flattened Earth is simply nonsense, based on a very stupid theory that objects have no shape on their own but rather depend, for their shape, on how they are observed. Think about it and decide for yourself.

As I've asked before, how curved spacetime ("whatever"...!) is essential to the math. (You answered something like, it's very complicated, if I remember correctly.) So, if quantum physicists apply their theory of "gravitons" as massless messenger particles conveying the force of gravity and it turns out to be a predictive improvement over the theory of curved spacetime for describing the gravitational behavior of objects, where would that leave the latter "whatever"... theory. In the trash bin of theory development, replaced by improved theories? Is it just one "whatever..." vs another "whatever..." (curved spacetime vs gravitons) with no need to explain the "what..." in either case, as ontology demands? I personally doubt if science-as-we-know-it will ever devise an experiment to explain how the force of gravity acts between objects at a distance. If it continues to depend on "whatever...", as metaphysical stuff that can not be identified, we might as well just go metaphysical all the way and say that "consciousness" is the power behind all of it. But that leaves material science behind.,i.e., not its universe of discourse. I, for one, will not go there in a science forum. Got it. Actually had it already, having studied it before on an introductory level as summarized below. (edit)* I just continue to wonder 'what it is' that mass pulls on when it bends the path of light. As above, we may never find the answer in material science. I had asked, "If light (photons) has "momentum" equal to mass, then why say that light has no mass? (A merely logical question.) "Equal to..." was clearly a wrong choice of words. But here is an easily found discussion of the different meanings of "mass" vs "momentum." * From Weburbia: From Ask the Van: I withdraw the inquiry, still not knowing how mass pulls on light and still not satisfied with the "answer", 'It doesn't; it bends space.'

This is on the margin of the topic (call it the ontology/philosopy of "What IS light?") and not related to recent conversations, but I would still like to understand better the nature of light as attracted by/to mass. (One of the supposed confirmations of "curved spacetime.") I know that "spacetime curvature" is the buzz-phrase for how that works according to GR. But those words don't mean anything until they relate to the dynamics of the observed gravitational attractions in a way that helps us to understand how the force of gravity works. It's not all 'proven' by math without referents in the observable cosmos. So how is "mass-less" light attracted by mass?... (If it doesn't just 'follow the *assumed* curvature of space?) I first asked (dismissed as irrelevant by the Cap 'n) whether we all know for sure that "a photon" has absolutely zero mass. That seems to be a question still under investigation by legitimate scientists. If light (photons) has "momentum" equal to mass, then why say that light has no mass? (A merely logical question.) If a photon has an infinitesimal mass, how is GR theory sure of how much, if 'it only accounts for half of observed curvature'... as GR claims? "Resting mass" is something that can not be measured for light, because light never stops to be measured for mass 'at rest.' Just some musings (and sincere questions) in the 'free thinking' category which philosophy of science enjoys.

My quote of reference below: Swansont: The above extreme frame, flying by at neary lightspeed, remains hypothetical, meaning that this alternative observation has never been done. The “may appear” acknoweges that IF it were done it MIGHT so appear. Even so, that appearance would be a distortion of the shape that science has come to* know* through a multitude of extremely accurate observations/measurements from frames at rest with Earth. Further we can apply the known astrophysics of how planets form and therefore know the dynamics of how gravity gathers debris from around stars like our sun into nearly spherical bodies. That physics does not come up with severely oblate spheroids as the accurate description of planet formation and the shape of planets so formed. Is that horse beat to death yet? Me: You; I was not stating a premise as a conclusion. There was no such context of logical framework per se, as you assumed and imposed. The statement that the cosmos is real and independent of observation is basic realism. An alternative is basic idealism, that cosmos has no reality of its own, but that its existence and properties do depend on observation. (False according to realism.) Me: You; Circular? Length contraction theory as applied above “ is still an* unverified theory*", while the spherical shape of Earth has been “tested” and verified by innumerable observations and measurements. Earth does not in fact “give a rat’s ass” how we look at it. But a long scientific history of looking at it up close from an at rest frame gives science a certainty about its shape not shared by length contraction theory fanatics, whomever they may be. You: The ontology (admittedly not your strong suit) of realism says that if you posit a model, of curved space for instance, and say that all lines through space must follow that curvature, you have made a model that requires real world verification. I posed a theoretical test of that recently: Two space buoys are at rest with each other. Note, they would be actual objects in space, not virtual points in a mental model already assuming curved space. Say they are in deep space making gravitational influence trivial, just to be clear on the parameters. Fire a laser from one to the other. It will describe a straight line, since it is not projected onto a “curved surface” of a theoretical model of curved space. The latter has the rule upon which you insist , but that does not make it a mandatory rule for all models. The Euclidean model of 3-D space with no curvature is not such a model... not even a “flat shape” model... which is a Euclidean plane, not 3-D space, as I’ve pointed out before. You: I am arguing *against* the non-Euclidean model! In so doing, I do *not* “ have to follow the rules of the non-Euclidean geometry.”! Disagreeing with non-Euclidean models of geometry and space cosmology is not “cheating.”! Science is not about such indoctrination into acceptance of the most popular or contemporary models , as you seem to think. Your (repeated) use of the phrase “repeated transgressions” is the language of indoctrination, which is why I likened it to an Inquisition... as per into the established dogmas (Ed: deleted quotes), as you present them, of length contraction and curved spacetime. Late edit: Again,"Show me that 'freely admitted engagement in dishonesty' or retract your statement. Seriously." Or, as a moderator with the power of authority to "ban" such idiots (or worse?), are you above such a challenge? Reminder... you are the one who has made this personal, over and over, like now I am "beyond idiocy", dishonest, and cheating for arguing in favor of Euclidean geometry and cosmology. Plus you try to impose the superiority of relativity theory (as per length contraction and spacetime curvature... SR and GR sub-theories) over all ontological questions as to what the terms mean in the world of solid objects and the ontology of space between object... subject to change caused by observation.... etc.

"So be it"... what? Will you ban me for my (in your judgment) "repeated transgressions?" I too strive for scientific accuracy, yet we disagree. "And one more." Earth's shape does not depend on observation of it. It has its shape all by itself. Same with cosmic distances between bodies. Now to unfinished business. ' To the point of my demand for a retraction: I never engaged in "intellectually dishonest behavior", as my review of the exchange just showed. Then to assert that I "freely admitted to engaging" in it... is really over the top for dishonesty and complete distortion on your part. Show me that "freely admitted engagement in dishonesty" or retract your statement. Seriously.

"repeated transgressions?"... Is this science or some new "science" version of the "Inquisition?" I get that free thinking is not welcome here... even in the Philosophy section. And... the Earth is not flattened, as SR would have it.

Me: Me: Ok, how do we know what we know? Some by observation, the a-posteriori, empirical branch of epistemology, and some by reason, the a-priori branch. MY quote above is based on both. The knowledge that the distance between Earth and Sun does not vary with how we look at it is another. We know this by observation (precise measurements) and by reason. We do have the observation that the speed of light is constant, and I have commented on that observation recently and need not repeat. We also have the extremely well documented observation that Earth is nearly spherical. But if we apply the length contraction theory to an extreme frame of reference observing it , it may appear nearly flattened. Can good science sort that out, or must we believe that Earth, after all, may be the latter shape, or that we can not know it's true shape because of the unresolved mystery of our measurements of lightspeed? To make my "distance between stars" example more specific, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. It takes 4.3 years for its light to reach us. If a spaceship were to travel from here to there at near lightspeed, first, it could not travel faster than light, so it would take it over 4.3 years to get there, regardless of the effects of relativity (high speed) causing probable retarding of the aging process in its passengers... and the subjective sense that less than 4.3 years had passed.(Edit: Also, the spaceship clock/calendar would show less time having passed, because the clock would have slowed down.) Secondly, all of the above can not and will not make the distance between here and there shorter. The distances between stars does not change with the speed of travelers between them. The cosmos is real as it is and independent of observation and measurement. This is based on realism, which is based on reason, which is a legitimate way that we know what we know. And length contraction on large scale is still an unverified theory, which is total nonsense as applied to the observed cosmos, the real world, given all the arguments presented yet again above. Follow up on the Swansont’s “intellectually dishonest” accusation; From my post 147: Me: My disagreement with assumptions about straight vs curved lines is based on an honest disagreement with the models developed by non-Euclidean geometry, i.e., their lack of “real world” reference, as I have already explained in detail. You still owe me a retraction. My disagreement did not constitute “intellectual dishonest.” Here is the exchange again for easy reference: Your original accusation, post 146: Me: Also an apology is due for claiming that my criticism of the above model is just me making up my own definitions, charging: Blame that "idiot," Euclid. (So now I am more stupid (beyond) than idiotic. Still nothing personal, I’m sure!)

Swansont: It is ontology, not semantics, to question the concept of “the shape of space.” “Flat” describes a plane in Euclidean geometry, not “space”, which includes the third dimension, volume, even though it has become commonplace in non-euclidean geometry to call Euclidean space “flat.” Empty volume does not curve or have shape, like the parabolic or spherical models. Me: You: I was using “theory” in the more general sense, as in Wikipedia’s: I recently referred to the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. From post 159: My usage of “theory” need not conform to a formal, narrow category to convey the above more general sense of it. Finally, back to the root of the argument about length contraction. I repeat: The question remains, "How does going faster make the distance shorter?" It certainly takes less time to get there. But, in the real cosmos, the distance between stars is a cosmic scale reality, and it's not going to close, or get shorter (theey will not move closer together) because a little rocket ship is traveling at nearly lightspeed between them. The passengers will probably age more slowly, as I have often agreed, but is not the same as "time expanding (dilating) or its reciprocal, distance becoming shorter. This is an ontological perspective.

Part of the 'relevance of philosophy to science' is the inquiry into (looking for answers) to the existential question epistemology poses, 'what is it?', in each case. Not "my assertion" about anything. Even your (and Cap's) insistence that what it is doesn't matter is an ontological assertion. The truth about the shape of Earth as an entity with intrinsic properties (not a mental model) is "held back" by the "assertion" of length contraction theory that it may not actually be spherical but nearly flattened, or that we will never know its shape for sure because of all the competing frames of reference. Very relevant to assumed philosophy. Not "my needs." It's always personal with you. No, I am not a mathematician. But I've studied a lot of geometry, and I gave you the major departure from Euclid and challenged how intersecting lines can still be called parallel. Math can not make parallel lines intersect! It is the first of many major fallacies introduced by non-Euclidean geometry. And attributing shape to space is another, IF space is no-"thing" as some ontologists, including me, argue. The denial of the Euclidean assertion that 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line' is simply nonsense based on the projection I already explained in detail. Non-Euclidean geometry (and resulting cosmology) is based on the (arguably) false ontology of attributing curvature and shape to space, as if it were an entity. It requires some appreciation of ontology to even recognize such assumptions as such. You keep saying that I misrepresent relativity, while I say that, ontologically, length contraction presents a false reality to describe Earth and our solar system based on extreme and unverified hypothetical assumptions. A flattened Earth really is a batch of nonsense. The reason that it is called the "theory" of the curvature of space in GR is that it does not in fact have the status of a "fact." You do well to claim no expertise in ontology, because, to repeat, curved space is not an established fact. This is tedious, but ontology challenges every "model" to refer to the world/cosmos which it attempts to describe. Beyond the context of the model, in the real world, there is no such restriction that a line must follow the curvature of a sphere. It is just a rule pertaining to that model. There is no absolute Reality of curved space, be it spherical, flat, or parabolic. In the "space is empty volume" model, "it" has no properties at all but empty volume, occupied here and there by things that do have shape. Pick two points in space. Mark them with space buoys at rest with each other. The distance between them is a straight line. It need not follow any hypothetical curvature. Likewise, it would help if you would stop trying to dominate a discussion of the ontology of space in the philosophy section with the rules of non-Euclidean geometry as if they were established facts. Me: You; It still is not about me, as you keep insisting. It is an ontology of Euclidean geometry as relevant to the cosmos of space and the stuff in it. Again, non-Euclidean has not become the absolute reality you seem to believe it is.

PeterJ; post 155: The Cap 'n is of the opinion that length contraction is beyond criticism, i.e., that "whatever the maths says it'll be" (based on the *theory* of length contraction) is in fact "correct" or factual, beyond mere theory. So philosophy has nothing to do with it. Observation, "for" whatever observer, from whatever frame of reference, establishes "reality" for that observer/relative frame. Debate over. Idealism wins. ... Or at least theory/math/conceptual manifold wins over cosmos as Reality independent of observation. I don't think so. This opinion rules in the relativity theory camp, but this section is where we get to discuss philosophy of science, like idealism vs realism, and the ontology of 'what it is', like curved spacetime vs gravitons as *theories* of how gravity works. What is "correct" about the distance to the Sun or the Shape of Earth? The "length contraction" part of SR and the "curved spacetime" part of GR, both theories do not get to dictate "Reality" and claim that the distance between bodies in our solar system, and their shape, are dependent on how we see them from extreme frames of reference. Just a philosophical point here in the midst of official pronouncements of what is real and correct according to specific theories of relativity. And if we "understand" the world to change with how we see it... or remain inscrutable because of the variety of 'frames' observing it, then it remains all in our minds, our "idea" of it..,.idealism. I only pull the IQ card when challenged on the "credentials" or "popularity" scales, the irrelevant ad hominem arguments here about credentials. I see no "bounce" between any polar opposites. Scientists all want to know how "It" works, and some of us also want to know what "It' is... whatever the focus... "matter made of atoms" (what is it made of?) or whatever. The epistemology as I see it is not a metaphorical alternating current but DC. The more we observe very closely, the better we "know" whatever it IS that we are observing. The way I understand the difference is that inductive gathers evidence into a hypothesis... maybe eventually a theory to see if it fits... by observation, always. If the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis, it is dumped, the "null hypothesis" verified. Deductive begins with a reasonable proposition, like "the whole universe does/did not fit inside of the volume of 'an atom'...." ( as claimed in the "History" tv program, "The History of the World in Two Hours')... or, as claimed by Hawking... from a "point of infinite mass density no volume." Then, if that knowledge and deduction turns out to be true and our a-priori knowledge was correct, then these models will turn out to be nonsense... i.e., false. I would prefer that, in science, no one would be interested in personal 'credit.' Yes, but subjective perception does not create individual 'realities' as equal to Reality as it is. "What is it?," is one valid question. "How does it work" is another. Neither is answered by subjective perception from individual points of view. The greatest cosmological mystery to me (besides the increasing rate of cosmic expansion)is the invariance of lightseed, which is so well documented. (No sarcasm here.) Light is the greatest mystery to material/matter-focused physics. So you have a choice between shrinking objects and distances and the measurements of constant lightspeed, using, by necessity, light as the mediums of information transmission. It can not be "pushed" by a fast rocket... we know that. But that rocket can travel right into the tail of its projected lightbeam and confuse the observers into thinking that either distance has shortened or "time' has expanded. Platform of observation does not effect that which is observed... except in idealism. Think about it. The vast majority of philosophers think that idealism is b.s. (I have not taken a survey, but I have studied a lot of philosophers.) If you think that Earth either distorts drastically as observed from extreme frames or can not be accurately described because of the dogma of "no preferred frames of reference", then I see no difference between your belief and any given dogma denying evidence to the contrary (like Earth is NOT nearly flattened, very oblate, but nearly spherical.) First, they are not just my ideas, but an integral philosophy of realism integrated from a lot of academic study... plus what I call "free thinking" here... an unfamiliar phrase to some. What?... You give me a choice between "(my) idea" and "the reality of the situation?" Tough choice! Like... "Have you stopped beating your wife?"