owl

My assumptions? Do you mean "assumptions" like, “the earth is almost spherical, not flattened... not a very oblate spheroid... just trivially oblate ?” We are way past "assumptions" about the shape of earth and distance to the sun. That has been well known for a long time. Relativity can not change that.

Back to basic philosophy of science. I repeat: "When length contraction insists that there is no 'true shape' of cosmic bodies or 'actual distance' between them, it is the job of philosophy to become a reality check." Different frames of reference do not in fact make earth change shape or move closer to sun. Address that, and then we can discuss whether the act of observing turns "objects as mists of possibilities" into well defined an located things. as per: ... "and then someone looks" and possibilities become realities. "And then someone looks" at the earth and its distance from the sun flying by very fast and, behold, earth IS flattened and only 10 or 15 million miles from the sun! The reality of the solar system and its bodies change as how we look at them changes! And this is not a form of idealism? Is anyone here philosopher enough to see this point? The science insisting that ‘flattened’ spherical bodies (sun, planets, etc.) are really flattened when we see them that way... that “science” has failed. I was not avoiding your challenge. You just didn’t hear my answers... not ‘framed’ right for you.

Kenneth Chang, from your link: “In the realm of” is a key designation here. How the subatomic realm transfers to macroscopic is an interesting topic of investigation. One hopes a unified "theory of everything" will eventually put it all together. Meanwhile... But, more to the point, “objects exist as... mists of possibilities”... etc.... is quite the philosophical assumption. “...and then someone looks” and the possibilities become observed positions. This claims that the act of observing collapses the “wave of probability,” and manifests possibility into reality. These are a lot of philosophical assumptions. They require serious examination. That is my intention here. Bye... for the weekend.

Swansont, You say, Realism "realizes" that planets do not in fact get closer to and further away from the stars they orbit, even under observation from extreme frames. This does no disservice to doing physics. It simply challenges one of its theories, length contraction, which has never been shown to apply on large scale. Even in the accelerator the possible difference between particles appearing flattened vs actually being flattened could be clarified by ontological consideration. Philosophy of science examines the meaning of its propositions and theories as to how well they describe the real world. When length contraction insists that there is no "true shape" of cosmic bodies or "actual distance" between them, it is the job of philosophy to become a reality check. If you were actually willing to teach wanna-be scientists that the earth-sun distance (or earth's shape) varies as per length contraction as a result of differences in observational frame, an ontological review is very much in order. Same with assumptions about time. "What is it that 'dilates'? is a fair question, a philosophy of science question. If it is just clocks slowing down, more precise language would make science more clear and 'honest' by dumping the reification that "makes something of it." Likewise it would put the lie to "time travel"... back to science fiction where it belongs. And the reason that there is an ongoing ontological debate (not just me) about "spacetime" is that it needs ontological clarification... and "how it works" IS a legitimate inquiry of science. Bashing me will not make these philosophical issues go away.

Am I allowed to “philosophize” in the philosophy section on the absurdity of a cat being alive and dead at the same time as a principle of physics describing the real world? I understand Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for instance, but "uncertainty" is in fact different than claiming two mutually exclusive conditions (both dead and alive) to be simultaneously present.

A quick pass through. No tags. Ts. me: swansont, making even less sense to me: What part was wrong? The part about how the cat can't be alive and dead at the same time or the part where we can not know until we open the box and examine the cat? Huh? I was thinking I'd ask you to make sense of that too... but it really is not worth it, and I, like you, really don't care anymore about this... umm... 'discussion' (to put it blandly) with you. If you ever get interested in "philosophical" stuff like epistemology, ontology of time, space, spacetime or the transition from euclidean to non-.... as the basis for new models like relativity... or how real is the intrinsic shape of Earth... come back to the philosophy section and visit. Or continue to think that as a physicist among the lowly philosophers, with Caesar over his new subjects, "I came, I saw, I conquered." Get over your supposed superiority as a "real" physicist.

Another replay required, as you seldom get it the first time: You: And that explains how the Au varies. The real world has nothing to do with it! As frame of reference varies, the object of observation varies. Idealism. me: This is the the kind of Q&A I am dealing with here with swansont. me: you: 'Relativity makes it happen' is no an answer. What about going faster or being in a (edit:, oopse, *stronger*) gravitational field makes clocks slow down? That is the ontological question that physics does not care about. But, being an amateur philosopher of science posting in the philosophy section, I do care about it, and it does remain an unexplained mystery. Making something of time is reification, including saying that "it" (not just a clock) slows down or dilates. The reciprocal, making something variable out of distance (length contraction) is a similar error of reification which results in the absurd proposition above, that the distance between earth and sun varies from 10 to 93 million miles. Whatever happens to subatomic particles in an accelerator, the IS vs APPEARS (to be flattened )has never been clarified, and there is no evidence that whatever happens there transfers to the macro scale and makes objects flatten or appear flattened or distances extremely contracted. Just to be clear about the "law of physics" known as length contraction. Back to your bait and switch trick question (which you deny as such): I answered your previous questions in terms of wavelength of light emitted from the object vs wavelength of light you see after it is shifted. This satisfied your original challenge to show the difference between observed and intrinsic in a measurable way rather than the usual squished earth and shortened Au, which is clearly absurd though length contraction insists on it. Now you rephrase the above wavelength challenge, saying that “there is no rest frame for a photon.” Its intrinsic color was as it left the object. Its observed, shifted color had changed by the time you saw it. Good grief, get over it! Again to more of your nonsense: Not enough sense here to even formulate a question. Maybe it's the same kind of nonsense as the Schrodinger's cat puzzle. The cat is *not*, as claimed, both dead and alive until we open the box. It is one or the other, and we don't know which until we open the box. Then it goes to this exchange: you: me: What a bunch of bs. Here is another case of obfuscation: You: me: I never claimed that preferred, as in at rest with what is observed, is a frame of absolute rest. As usual you distort what I am saying. An exception to my longstanding policy of not replying to your always personal attacks: I used diagnostic categories throughout my professional career but choose not to in this case, having read his original thread claiming to be a time traveler. (If not the same person, my apologies to him/her.) You can be done with this thread any time you like. Fewer hostile replies could only be an improvement. PS; edit: My apologies to time Traveler. I mistook him/her for another who had a thread claiming to be an actual time traveler. (Couldn't find the thread, but it was a joke that finally got exposed.) swansont: I'll make it very simple. If you were able to observe a flattened earth, from a hypothetical very high speed frame, would the earth 'really' be flattened because you observe it to be flattened, make the flattening "not an illusion?" Would you really teach that the distance to the sun varies from 10 to 93 million miles and make a fool of yourself in all of astronomical science? What, no direct answer? Of course not, because it is a totally bogus assertion, not "really" based on "the laws of physics" but on some very unfounded assumptions.

Just scanned the column on the right and found “time Traveler’s” “update” under Recent Status Updates. Not a fan of his... I will withhold professional diagnosis... but I really liked one of his statements: “a red car is a red car no matter where it is its still a red car “

It is also the study of dimensions, forms, and models, including how/if these models apply to the world/cosmos. One need not use math to understand the progression of dimensions from point (none) to line (one) to plane (two) to volume (three.) Then, if a fourth spatial dimension is proposed, ontology asks what that describes (how it applies) in the real world, since 3-D covers the three axes of volume or space. If even more dimensions are proposed, the same inquiry applies with each one. If you call them “ degrees of freedom” then what does this freedom mean as regarding dimensions, as above. You don't understand realism. You hide behind the phrase "the laws of physics", assuming that length contraction is one of them. So therefore, earth either changes shape, or we can't know its 'true shape', since there is no such thing as 'true shape' according to the above "laws of physics." No doubt the appearance of things changes with frame of reference. Philosophy (realism in this case) distinguishes between an apparently squished earth (or shortened Au) and an actually, in the real world squished earth or shortened Au. You are not, so far, capable of understanding this fundamental difference. I see you omitted "accurate" from "getting data." I taught experimental design, and my "bs detector" just went off. The accurate description of earth comes from an at rest frame with it, not from the near 'c' fly by frame. Of course we can speak of light (photons) as either waves or particles. So far my replies have focused on light, specifically color, as wavelength. It compresses with object/observer relative movement toward each other. The wavelength as emitted is its intrinsic color. All of that was a variation of the theme “appears vs is” at your insistence... something we can measure... as relief from earth not changing form even if it were to appear changed (squished.) Nice bait and switch maneuver. Not so. I could go with one at a time for simplicity. Do you or do you not think that time travel is possible? Do you or do you not think that "time slows down" as in "dilates?" (That sounds like two, but it is one test of your reification of time.) I'll pass on bogging this thread down in sorting out your double talk if you refuse to explain it, as I've already challenged. Yup. I live the real world where the shape of cosmic bodies does not morph* with observational frame, and distances between them do not shorten even if they look that way to the high speed fly by guy. *Oh, btw, if they don’t actually morph, since no force is applied by “length contraction” do they (shapes and distances) just remain unknowable since we rate the accuracy of all possible frames the same? What was your stance on that again? Last I heard you thought that the distance to the sun did vary between 10 and 93 million miles, and you thought that should be taught in school. You continue to intentionally ignore (misrepresenting my position) that I have often agreed on GPS accuracy as adjustment of rate of clocks ticking at different speeds, not ‘proof of time dilation’. But yet you drag it out yet again. Wikipedia (my emphasis): Swansont insists that our measurements are reality. I can see where confusion might arise here. The phrase “perhaps ideal science” above refers, I think, to how close “the world described by science” matches the “reality existing independently of observers” or frames of reference. I say that insisting that measurement (observation)* is* reality... is a contemporary form of idealism, with ‘frame of reference' substituting for “subjective” in classical subjective idealism. This does not deny that frame of reference can be an abstract point of view with no actual ‘subject’ present. I hope this clarifies. Thanks for your comments.

A brief review of points and challenges from the last page which you have avoided addressing: Swansont: me: You: Me: You: Yes. When/if measurement yielded a 1000 mile diameter earth it would be wrong, not "reality." me you: You said, " me: "That is clearly nonsense." Still is. How did your ‘argument by contradiction’ go again? Ah, here it is: Well, that sure clears things up! Are you even trying to make sense or just practicing double talk? You are very good at it already. me: you: me: you: me: me: You: I will leave it to the school boards to decide, and if they teach that crap, I'll get my kids to put my grandkids in a different school. The above is just as ridiculous as ‘creationism’, insisting on a six day period for god to create the world... “and on the seventh day, he rested.” or... "Yes, children, earth moves closer to and further away from the sun, depending on how we look at it. The relativity bible tells us so." you: me: you: me: (again) You claim here that a flattened Earth is real if you measure it to be flattened. You also claimed that the distance to the Sun varies between 10 and 93 million miles, because our measurements of that distance can vary that much."What we measure is reality." That is just wrong.

If they see how all three are wrong, they will pass, (ace the course) even though they disagree with these mainstream relativity misconceptions. Saying, 'relativity says so' doesn't make it right. There is a "real world" out there (realism), whether you believe it or not, and it does not depend on how we see it for its reality. Science's job is to see it as accurately as possible. Your original example of how you see it vs what color it is: I addressed it in detail already but now it’s about what color is a photon. The original color as emitted changes as movement causes shift. (Yet again) Then I agreed that you shot the right color of photon to be absorbed by the object, knowing that the wavelength you see had shifted. me: * Not. In review, another detail... You said: “Absolute?” Of course we are not talking about your object as the one thing in the cosmos not moving. (Absurd.) Is this a change of goal posts on your part? How about relatively at rest, like in the same frame, not moving relative to an object observed. Science would “prefer” that frame to see what color/wavelength the object is “actually” emitting. You go on... “so we assume that what we measure is real.” I addressed the real vs the apparent in your example already. You say: See * above. “Really?” “In your frame” is how you see it, for sure. But that is not its actual color. As it is emitted is its actual color, “really.” And the Earth stays spherical too even if it were seen as very squished. Really! Squished and spherical are NOT “both true.”

Science is based on the study of the world as it IS, (“really”.) How it might APPEAR from high speed frames of reference is another question, properly the subject of study for how the appearance of length contraction might apply on macro scale. In any case, the results would not change the shape of Earth, or make that frame's description "equally valid" with its well known shape. The wavelength of light has different colors in different parts of the spectrum.Surely you know that. As light is emitted (or reflected) from an object, that is the color of the object. How you see it will be different than how it is emitted (intrinsic color of the object) if there is movement between observer and object observed. The difference is between the wavelength (color) it has as emitted and the wavelength (color) you see after it is compressed by movement, thus “distorted” from its emitted/intrinsic color/wavelength. Is that enough detail? I’ll get back to the rest soon. Just an add on here. Reviewing, I saw this again from ydoaPs (no tag, sorry) which helps clarify my version of “Not Invarient.” ydoaPs: I would apply this to the Earth-Sun distance (length.) "Realistically" it stays the same (is “invariant”) “when reference frames are changed.”... Even when the 'fly-by-guy' sees it differently. This could resolve the debate here.... If the distance to the Sun is not categorized as “length” (a semantics debate) and fit into the “Length is Not Invarient” belief. So then the Au can be, as it is, a constant... regardless of frame of observation... the ellipse being trivial.

(Ref; my): It is also the accurate "realistic" info on the Au and Earth science. Earth is not, in fact, flattened, nor is the real/actual distance to the Sun 10 million miles. me: I'm glad you are not their astronomy teacher! It might sound something like this: "In my class you will learn that there is no real cosmos independent of our measurements, so all astronomy and Earth science taught here will depend on how we look at it, i.e., from all varieties of frames of reference, yielding a vast variety of answers to all your questions about Earth's size and shape and the distances between bodies in our solar system. I repeat, reality depends on our measurements, which vary drastically with frames of reference." No, thanks. Not science. No, it's not science. Earth's shape does not depend on how you look at it. To claim that it does is idealism. Study some philosophy before you teach the kind of crap in the hypothetical situation 'quoted' above. I 'defined' "apparently" in detail with your colored object. The color the object is emitting is its actual color. The color you see is distorted by compacting waves due to its movement toward you. This distortion from what it is emitting to what you see is the well known shifted effect... shifted from what it is emitting to how you see it, how it appears to you. That is as clear as I can make the distinction. My argument is not with your use of calculations. It is with your philosophical assumption that measurement determines reality, that the actual shape of earth IS flattened when/if you measure it to be so. What it's shape IS is different than what its shape might APPEAR TO BE from an extreme frame. That applies also to your galactic scale example: ... (etc.) The point is they have actual, real, intrinsic "attributes," so when we see squished spheres and ridiculously short distances between bodies, we must have enough sense to 'translate' appearances into accurate descriptions. Well, that is all very unclear at this point. If you repeat the question referenced above, at least I would know which one to address in this case. I have asked you so many questions, left un-answered, that I've lost track. "Is time travel possible?" was one you avoided. Does "time slows down" mean something different than "clocks slow down"... is another, the latter being a de-reification of time. True. I was being sarcastic again. I am doing my best to clarify. The "real Earth" is nearly spherical. One possible "apparent Earth" could be squished nearly flat. I've used this example until we all must be tired of hearing it, but still you are "confused" about the above distinction. I hope all of the above has "clarified" that. Ref; me: you: I'll get back to this. (I may lose my post if I chase around reviewing.) Reality: Everybody knows the shape of Earth, its exact dimensions and all... from, you know... at rest with it, and living on it as we do and applying our best science of observation. Yes, measurements can distort reality. If you find a way (go very fast past it) to "measure it" as having a 1000 mile equatorial diameter, that measurement would "distort" its reality. So science must be intelligent enough to observe and measure from the best possible frame of reference (or translate the differences intelligently.) Of course this flies in the face of the dictum that "there are no preferred frames of reference." Whenever possible, choose an at rest frame, not moving with reference to the object of measurement. When not possible, use the appropriate tools, like the Lorentz transformation, to "translate" from silly flattened bodies to the near-spheres they "actually" are, in "reality." But first you have to get over denial of reality, i.e., realism. I understand. Use your tools, as just stated. Just don't throw out the knowledge that cosmos does not depend on measurements for its "reality." The latter is realism. To the exchange I postponed above: me: .You: EARTH IS NOT FLATTENED. An extreme frame of observation can not not make it flattened! me: You: You claim here that a flattened Earth is real if you measure it to be flattened. You also claimed that the distance to the Sun varies between 10 and 93 million miles, because our measurements of that distance can vary that much."What we measure is reality."

Swansont: We have an abundance of ways to know (ref: epistemology) the actual distance to the Sun. The better our instruments and techniques get, the more precise and exact the measurements. Same with size and shape of Earth. So, along comes our favorite length contraction based thought experiment... the near ‘c’ fly by guy... and he measures the distance to the Sun to be, oh, say ten or fifteen million miles. How “real” is that? Should we teach our children that the distance to the Sun is somewhere between 10 and 93 million miles, depending on how we measure it, and assume that all frames of reference yield equally accurate results? This is not science. It is a contemporary version of idealism which claims that reality is however we see it, from whatever extreme velocity. You can dance around this argument all you want and claim that apparently squeezed nuclei in an accelerator makes an apparently squeezed Earth or shortened distance to the Sun just as real as the well known facts. That also means that all well known astronomical distances between cosmic objects are not well known at all, because they drastically change with whatever our velocity is relative to them. This is bs at its worst, and it does in fact deny that the world is real all by itself, and asserts that our observations/measurements, as variable as they are, determine “reality.” This is a philosophical perspective repeated quite often against the philosophy that there is no intrinsic cosmos with its own reality, but rather that reality is defined by how we measure it. The at rest frame is the way to observe and measure whatever part of that cosmos, because very high speed apparently distorts “appearances.” Probably quite obvious to everyone but length contraction fanatics. What appears to the eye of the observer here (wavelength/color of light) has been compacted by movement after it was emitted as its original wavelength/color. ..."is there a way of telling...?" Yes, and I've already "told" quite a few times. The apparent shift is due to movement, so to see it as it is emitted means we must see it from at rest to eliminate the reason for the shift and get back to the intrinsic color emitted by the object. Would it help if i repeated that a few more times? You seem very confused to me. What part of my above reiterated explanation did you not understand? Yes, you could say that that the shift is real. The observer sees the color differently than the object itself is emitting, and the difference is a shift due to movement... blah, blah, blah. You deny that that the world is real independent of measurement. That is not science. Science accepts that the world is real ('all by itself') and devises the best ways to observe and measure it to accurately describe that reality. If, like you, they say Earth appears flattened (from the usual extreme frame), and appearance/measurement determines reality, therefore Earth is flattened... not just appears flattened... from that frame of reference... then frame of reference determines reality. This claims that there is no reality besides appearances and their measurements. If you are not philosopher enough to see how bogus this is, I am ready to quit with you. I'm tired of explaining that measurements can distort reality, especially in my favorite and often repeated instances. No, swansont, Earth is not flattened and will never be flattened, even if we ever get to see it from that super fast fly by frame. It will stay nearly spherical and you and your lenght contraction fanatic colleagues will stay wrong about its "true shape." Yes, it has a true shape which doesn't depend on how we look at it. But up close and at rest with it will always be the best way to look at it for an accurate description. I may or may not finish the point by point reply to your post. It's obviously useless. One more: You can not know unless you know its velocity relative to you. But that does not mean that it has no actual color/wavelength until you get that info. Of course it will be very clear from the at rest frame, if you could get close or at least not be moving relative to it.

The answer is emphasized above. Movement of the object relative to the observer causes the apparent shift. At rest with the object tells you what color it is emitting (or reflecting.) The difference is the "shift." You corrected for the shift, so you gave it what it can absorb, having known the shifted difference. With what part of this do you disagree (or all of it?): You: Given a choice between GR’s curved spacetime and Quantum Theory’s gravitons, how do you know which is is right, if either, given that both spacetime and gravitons are words without real world referents, i.e., meaningless metaphysical concepts? Planets "behave" by orbiting around the Sun. Do you have any interest, as a scientist, in how that force of attraction is conveyed? I do, but nobody knows... yet. Is... “ mass curves space and curved space guides them”... a legitimate answer in your mind, even though the ontology of spacetime is far from settled? Yes, that has always been my point. There is no data, no evidence for an actually flattened Earth, even though it may appear flattened from that very fast moving frame. Again, there is no evidence for a flattened Earth, so teaching that its actual shape (yes, it has an actual, intrinsic shape of its own!) depends on frame of reference, including flattened if seen as above, is wrong. You've still got it backwards. If there are data that a flattened Earth is an equally valid description (and there aren't... grammar edit)... "please provide them." No. It's very simple, as bolded above. Your example was about the color of an object. We both know about apparent shift of wavelength (and color) with movement of the object either toward or away from the observer. To find out what color the object itself is actually emitting, we must "control for" that movement. That means, in this case, to "look at it" from at rest with it... not moving relative to the object. There is nothing about that which is difficult to understand... yet you manage. By measuring wavelength from at rest with the object, eliminating the movement which causes the apparent shift. Basic experimental/observational design.

Swansont; I'll get back to some of your specific points as time permits, but first, right off the top, concerning: No. The wave does not change lengths. Realism. The appearence of the wavelength (color of the light) changes with relative movement toward (compacted, blue shift) or away from (stretched, red shifted) the observer’s frame. It “will actually” appear (not “be”) blue because of blue shift due to apparent wave compacting relative to the observer. You have correctly adjusted for the difference by shooting the right color photon to be absorbed by the object, which has an intrinsic color (from spectrometry at rest with, i.e., not moving relative to) different than the shifted color you see. As for the larger picture... why all that matters, referencing your : As my grandchildren begin to study science seriously, I want them to know that Earth has a very well measured and defined shape and distance from the Sun... that the cosmos and all of its parts exist as they are, objectively, with intrinsic properties which science seeks to know as accurately as possible. They should not be “learning” that Earth’s shape and distance from the Sun depend on how we look at it. (idealism.) You can believe that if you think that length contraction actually makes physical bodies either change shape or have un-knowable shapes or that the distance to the Sun varies because of the “all frames equal” dictum. And when they ask how gravity works, I hope they are taught that we don’t know yet... unless and until we do know. Inventing words without meaning, like “spacetime” does not help our understanding of how gravity works. It is just a visual aid, an imaginary scaffolding for the math, which has improved its use as a tool for prediction. Same with all the varieties of geometric models which lead to different cosmologies. Ontology always seeks to know how these models actually apply to the “real world” even if non-Euclidean models don’t care anymore whether or not they describe the “real world”... or whether there is one, for that matter. Anyway, I hope you get my drift. That’s where philosophy of science, epistemology, ontology, and all that "bullshit” (Feynman) comes in. No, all the actual evidence is in favor of a nearly spherical Earth. There is no evidence at all for a flattened Earth. Even if we were able to fly by at near ‘c’ and the Earth *appeared* flattened, it would remain spherical, and the Lorentz transformation would be required to “correct the image.” How far back to go in review?.... I have often agreed that everything is moving on all scales. But if we are talking about a certain colored object and ask, what color is it?, it behooves us to focus on who is asking from what perspective relative to the object. My last post installment covered that in detail. We are not interested in the object’s movement relative to galactic center or relative to the rate of cosmic expansion between galaxies. So, if the object is moving toward you, the color will appear blue shifted, etc. The at rest frame with the object is not moving relative to the object, and that is the frame from which the color of the object, as it is, can be determined by the spectrometer.

My position contrasts appearances with the natural, intrinsic shapes involved. Do you understand philosophy of science well enough to realize that the world/cosmos does not depend on our measurements for its reality? I think not.... "measurements being reality." Can you even imagine the cosmos existing with no one around to measure it? Would there be no cosmos without us here to measure it and verify its existence and describe its properties from all these various perspectives? Would Earth have no shape without we variously measure it? Surely you can see how ridiculous this form of idealism is... like what you see ceases to exist every time you blink, not observing it. You said, " We are not at rest with respect to it, but we are not moving with respect to it.” That is clearly nonsense, but now you admit that one can not be both at rest and moving with respect to the same frame.... "so one doesn't exist" is more nonsense. Again, realism says that the world exists as is independent of observation and measurement. You say that physics "is based on the premise of measurements being reality." ... No reality, no world without our measurements. We create the cosmos by observing it, and it has no reality apart from our observing it. All astute philosophers of science, hearing this will be laughing their asses off. My expertise is derived from a longtime interest in and study of the ontology of time. See thread title. Do you still think that time travel is possible or not? You said you do, so you reify it. You think "it" changes (slows down) and makes clocks slow down, so you reify it. How is time a "dimension?" Things move and we say time elapses as they do. The Sun is 8 light minutes away. That is a measure of its distance from Earth. So it takes sunlight 8 minutes to reach Earth. How is that elapsed time a "dimension?" That is what ontology demands of physics. me: You: Cute! Tit for tat with the sarcasm. But seriously... answer my time questions/challenges above. Good for you!... A scientist who doesn't believe the world exists as is on its own or has properties of its own independent of measurements, which bestow reality upon the world. Well I am not an expert in spectronomy (whatever... with a spectrometer), but if you could set aside your belief that the world is as you see it for a moment... A spectrometer at rest with the object will show what wavelength it is emitting, regardless of how the lightwaves are compressed or stretched from your perspective from frames not at rest with the object. That would be realism.

"It does" refers to this exchange: You: me: You: You claim length varies with frame. Diameter of Earth is its length. It's rigidity is an argument for it having an intrinsic shape, not malleable or changing with your length contraction scenario. That is your idealism. Earth's shape does not change even if your measurement of it from the well worn extreme frame varies. No it's not. I have acknowledged many times that the Lorentz transformation formula 'transforms' the possibility of a silly looking squished Earth back to its well known shape. You and others insist that it has no true shape, all shapes as seen from extreme frames being equally valid. Funny you have missed that point after so many repetitions. What contradiction? You deny realism and contend that reality, including Earth's shape, depends on the frame of reference from which it is seen. This proves that your science is based on idealism in denial that cosmos exists and has properties independent of observation and measurement. (X well over a hundred on that philosophical point.) As long as frames of reference dictate your reality, there is no communication between us on this point. We are way beyond clarity on which example is an argument for what point here. "Identical physical processes?" Clocks slow down. "Time" is not a process that slows down. Clocks' rates of oscillation vary. The elapsed time for my dropped ball does not vary, just because two clocks in different frames will have "clocked" the event duration differently. Address that. I've explained before that the math is not the explanation of what time dilation means, and that I don't do math. So you go ahead and say... 'see here... the math tells us that time dilates and length contracts.' No, it doesn't. If you agree that "time dilation" simply means that clocks slow down at high speed, etc., then, fine. No explanation of how that works, but... fine. Then you are not allowed the possibility of 'time travel' either if you have repented from the reification of time. Also then we both know that clocks tick as regularly as we can design them to tick and we can compare ticks to other events and say, so much time elapsed, and call it a measurement. But if clocks differ on clocking the same event... they require adjustment... which we've discussed in detail re GPS etc. Wow! "The actual physics!" No need for mere words to make sense and meaning of it. No need for ontology of time. (See above.) It is what clocks measure! I've challenged you several times to critique Ross' piece which examines the ontology of your 4D space in depth. I've been explaining the geometry of 3-d space and time to moth, ydoaPs and others here, and there is no fourth dimension of space. If you think there is, explain it. Asserting it as a given does not cut it... not an argument for it. You deny realism. Realism states that things are as they are, not depending on your all-important frames of reference from which they are seen and measured. "...only the observer's frame. Isn't that the essence of realism? " NO! Just the opposite! How many times have I said that the world doesn't care how we look at it? It is as it is regardless of that. That leaves science the task of always finding the best way to look at whatever is being measured and observed... and, yes, there are better and worse ways to do that. See above reiteration. If we disagree on Earth having a true, intrinsic shape and on the distance (length) to the Sun hanging right around 93 million miles... not getting way shorter (contracted) as seen from... extreme frames... then there is no use for or need of further, more subtle examples. So you are going to stick with "relativity makes it happen" and think that you have explained it? Oh well... And how about that gravity 'explanation.' Curved spacetime covers it too, even though it is anybody's guess what it is or what the word means, much less how it works. It's all in the math. So is the quantum gravity version, but quite a different theory. You have very successfully avoided that challenge too.

I agree. Once we define our geometry... line, plane, volume... of one, two and three dimensions, respectively, all confusion is clarified. You can stick to a 2-d plane and ignore the third dimension (volume), but that doesn't make it go away. And saying the word "hypervolume" does not describe another dimension. Theorizing seven more dimensions beyond 3-d space and time doesn't make them 'real' descriptions of 'more dimensions either'... as M-theory presents... pure metaphysics using esoteric math symbols and invented dimensions... as if it were real science.

Me too, though I would rather not call elapsed time for movement (duration) another dimension. But that is common and I can get over it. But you say, "at least." Don't three spatial dimensions exhaustively describe space/volume? After front-back; left-right; and up-down, what other axis/dimension applies... what additional direction would a 4th spatial dimension describe? Some catch-up and follow-up before I take off for the weekend (Again from notes without time/ID stamps... just not convenient for me for review.): swansont: Yes, it does. You are the one claiming that it's length varies with frame of reference. “All by itself” is a realist phrase... that it is intrinsic to the stick, not variable with how it is observed. me: you: This is tedius. Given that the length of Earth’s diameter (which determines its shape) doesn’t change, you are wrong to insist that length is not invariant, i.e., that it varies. I have asked very directly many times, most recently, Or again: You “answered”: It is different. Rigidity is not an issue — there is no force involved. It does not change in the way you are implying. It has a different value, because it does not have an inherent value.” Do you really call that an answer to “Does Earth’s shape vary or not?” No one is claiming that a squishing force is involved. You claim that the length of its diameter (shape) varies, i.e., “is not invariant.” I have a very good built in bs detector too, and this is a pile of it. Here it is again: me: You: Do you mean your position that Earth has no true shape ‘all by itself’ or that it changes shape or that we can not know its shape... all frames being equal and all? And again, me: You: Yes. If relativity insists on the “no preferred frame” dictum, and we want to get the best possible info on Earth, it will not be by flying by it at very high speed. S: Review my challenge to the above. Are you sticking with this obvious contradiction or not?” Now back to time reification: S: We agree that physical processes like clock oscillations slow down when accelerated to different velocities. But if you are timing/clocking an event like say how long it takes a ball to drop 1000 feet, with different clock readings from clocks going different velocities... with “seconds” timing the drop differently, does not mean that elapse time for the ball dropping varied with the different “measurements” ... number of ‘ticks” simultaneous with the drop. Clocking an event differently as above does not mean that the event duration itself varied. If "time is that which clocks measure"* and they "measure" the same event differently, the fallacy of the tautology* becomes obvious. S: One more time... Yes, I can measure the length of a board with a tape “measure.” I can “measure” the duration of a race with a stopwatch. The length of the board will not vary under extreme observation yielding a very much shorter “length.” The elapsed time for the race will not vary with which of a variety of clocks in different frames “measure” it. The difference between “time dilates” and “clocks tick at different rates” is an important ontological distinction... which is lost on you. Ps; swansont: No, realism doesn't say that. Realism recognizes that various physical processes slow down for many reasons. I said that none of us knows what it is about different velocities* or different gravity fields that makes clocks slow down. I said that "relativity" is not such an explanation. It remains a mystery, like gravity... which, btw you claimed is not a mystery to you, but just to me... though you 'run and hid' every time I ask "what does mass curve and how does that 'whatever' guide objects in curved paths?" *Surely the acceleration required to move clocks into different velocities is a possible contender for what "force" might be involved, as is the force of gravity as another variable.

There are only three dimensions of space. The rest are “theoretical/imaginary” models in theorists’ minds. (Time is about movement through/in space.) I am looking at the sphere I spoke of from the space beyond the sphere. This is still in 3-D space beyond the surface of the sphere. The surface of the sphere is curved. Obviously. Draw what you like on it, conceptually. The cosmos stays the same. All three spatial dimensions plus the time factor... moving between here and there. Gotta go again. Didn’t get to my point by point argument with swansont yet. Maybe later. One more piece before I go. You asked: "We have to be 3-d to see the arc in the 2-d surface, do you deny that we must be 4-d to see 3-d geodesics as curved?" Yes. There is no "4-d" space but in mental models. "Time" is a factor (movement) but not a dimension. Btw: Regarding your, "We have to be 3-d to see the arc in the 2-d surface,..." (Edit... details..): The arc was on the surface of the sphere, which is a 3-d object with a 3-d survace... not a flat 2-d plane. Science as it relates to the real cosmos is not about conceptual dimension shifting. It is not about the observer, "we." It is an objective focus in science at its best. How many dimensions do you think there are? Please describe them as best you can.

Swansont; I'll get back to point by point reply to your last post asap, but first some unfinished business. (from my notes... no time/ID stamp, sorry.) me: A direct answer for a change would be very much appreciated. You: I explained the license I take in calling these phrases dogmas: A: “Length is not invariant,” i.e., it varies. B: “There are no preferred frames of reference.” “A” means that the shape of Earth varies (i.e., its diameter... a length.) “B” means that how we see it is how it is, from whatever frame, therefore we can not know its intrinsic, object shape, or if there is one. So, again, please answer my above questions. I edited out "dogma," replaced by “dictum”, a neutral word, so your answer need not endorse “A and B” as dogmas. Also,please explain your statement: “ We are not at rest with respect to it, but we are not moving with respect to it.” Seems one must be either moving or at rest with respect to any reference frame. Like in orbit around Earth is at rest with it, while flying by at near 'c' is obviously "moving with respect to it." Finally, I summarized realism yet again as follows: Do you disagree? Do you think that “the world” and its properties and the distances between cosmic objects depend for their existence and properties, on frames of reference from which they are observed/measured or not? ydoaPs: I’m guessing you failed high school geometry. Summary review: A point is a locus with no “dimension.” A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. A volume ( all 3-D forms including a sphere) is three dimensional. ydoaPs: If we take a Euclidean space with a line on it and roll the space into a cylinder, the line is STILL straight. This is just you not understanding math. You don’t understand geometry, much less the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean. If you draw a line on a plane (lets not debate the ontology of “space” here now...) it is a straight line. If you roll the plane into a cylinder, the line becomes a circle, describing a “slice” of the cylinder, no longer a straight line. If you draw a line on the surface of a sphere, it is an arc, not a straight line. From the end points of that arc, a straight line is point to point through the sphere. I do not agree with non-Euclidean models of space nor the "rules" thereof, as swansont well knows from our debate over the above. This disagreement does not automatically make me (or other ontologists of geometry and cosmology) wrong, as you and swansont continue to assume... having no grasp of ontology* in the first place. *(Part of philosophy of science.)

swansont: I’ll be glad to clarify if you will be specific as to which of those little curly symbols you were referring. I have asked you so many questions that you have ignored, it’s hard to keep track... yet you expect answers. Be specific. More bickering about the meaning of “measure.” See comparison of meters with clocks. s: You can call it that if you don’t meanwhile believe that clocks slowing down means that “time is dilating” as if you were "measuring" the rate at which "time" is slowing down. If you are comparing (clocking) natural events and comparing different clocks at different rates of oscillation (at different velocities, etc.), you can not say that one natural event was shorter in duration just because one clock slowed down while being compared to it (which you call “measuring.) s: Are you trying very hard to be difficult, or does it just come naturally?* Length is the concept of “from here to there” referring to objects in space or from one end of an object, say a stick, or from one side of Earth to the other. Not a difficult concept. Not a “thing” per se, but a concept describing real things and their dimensions or space between them, say in light years or meters or whatever. *“Full of length” just gave me a good chuckle. Thanks. .s: Whether Earth changes shape or not (not) has a lot to do with its rigidity. Does it or doesn’t it change shape? You say length varies. Its diameter is the distance (length) through it. Does it vary or not? s: Wiki on dogma: I’ll go with “particular group” above, that being length contraction/time dilation "believers." I have of course taken the license to liken your belief to religious dogma because you believe that how you look at things determines their reality, i.e., you don’t believe that Earth has a “true shape” of its own independent of that. I need not repeat what any scientist examining Earth would "prefer" as a frame from which to observe it and determine its true shape. To "examine" the effects of high speed travel past Earth as it might effect how it looks, of course your near 'c' fly by frame would be appropriate, if it ever becomes possible. No need to capitalize it and make it into a Diety or Platonic ideal. Yes, realism asserts that all cosmic objects have their own intrinsic shapes and properties, and they don't change with how we look at them. You length contractors believe otherwise. So did you get my distinction between "IS", as you challenged, and "APPEARS.?" If its shape doesn't depend on how it appears, it has intrinsic shape. (This is best known via close examination, as with all subject matter of science.) If it has no intrinsic shape... then it is as it appears... idealism. Edit; an afterthought on this swansont statement: "If there were a preferred frame of reference, we could measure our speed with respect to it." Neither the distance between nor the shape of objects in the cosmos depends on our frame of reference or our speed with respect to them. Measuring our speed (relative to whatever) changes nothing in the cosmos. "Relative to what?" does not describe the cosmos as it is... just how we see our little part of it. And our nice spherical (almost) planet will not change with how we look at it.

No. You continue to misrepresent my ontology of time. The concept of event duration of physical processes (my understanding of time) is a meaningful concept without the reification of insisting that time expands or dilates. Processes take more or less time in different situations. But I have repeated this ontology of time dozens of times and you still come back with, “If time isn’t real it can’t be measured." I’ve commented exhaustively on how we compare ticking clocks to observed natural events and say, in standardized units of time, that the event took so long. Yes, that is measurement without reifying time. swansont: You belabor the obvious. We all know the answer to “How long is a meter stick?” (Duh.) “How long” is its length. A meter is a standardized unit of measure commensurate with the distance (another word for length) from equator to pole, i.e., one ten millionth of that distance or length on the curved quadrant of Earth. When you insist (over and over) that length is not invariant, it means that length varies, including Earth's diameter as an example of length. So you are insisting that the dimensions of objects change, i.e, Earth changes shape. Then you object to that statement. You can’t be serious! I get my ideas about the (nearly) spherical Earth, Moon, Sun, other planets, and other stars mostly from the well established science of astronomy. We have orbited the Moon quite a few times, and, sure enough, it is a ball of dirt and rock, not a flat circle/disk. We have directly seen all of the surface of the Moon and all of its features in great detail. If this is the level of your understanding and communication here in a science forum, it is just as well that you leave and study at least some basic Earth science and astronomy. Neither I nor science in general "create the idea of what shape a thing is" by mental modeling alone. We observe actual objects in the real world/cosmos, like in my example above. "...." ... and shadowy figures appear... so what is real? Enough already. What is the shape of Earth's shadow from various perspectives? Umm... that will depend on which perspective, for sure. swansont: Aha! Now I get it! Why didn't you say so before? So when/if a meter rod appears to be only ten or fifteen cm long (its measured length from high speed frame) THAT is length contraction. Or like, similarly, the Sun appears to be only about a dozen or so million miles away... there it is again... length contraction. Thanks for clearing that up. swansont: You agree that we don't know how mass attracts mass, but I'm the only one who calls gravity a mystery? If it is not a mystery to you, then you are claiming to know how masses are mutually attracted! You contradict yourself. Ps: As per Brown and Pooley, they asked how "spacetime" functions... like what gets curved by mass and how does that 'whatever' guide objects in curved paths. If gravity is not a mystery to you, explain the above persistent ontological mystery of spacetime. (You've ducked this one many times before, though... so I expect that will continue.)