owl

Yes. It's basically belief that how we see it is how it is regardless of how extreme (velocity relative to what is observed, for instance) the frame of observation. Whether the object "changes shape" as in "length (of diameter) varies" or whether we just can not know an object's "true shape" (there is none in idealism)... has never been a clear consensus here among length contraction advocates. Here is where we depart. How can you seriously assert that: "...we're the only sentient beings in the universe capable of observing anything, wouldn't that mean that there is only one relevant frame of reference." First there are very probably (statistically alone, even) uncountable systems in the universe capable of supporting not only sentient but intelligent life. Second: Frame of reference is an abstract perspective, not dependent on an intelligent observer. How it might look from various frames is the fallacy of appearance vs intrinsic properties, which I am debating with the length contraction advocates here. Please elaborate. This to the forum in general; a follow-up on TAR's sincere questioning of SR's invariability of the speed of light. Just to clarify: If length and time vary (length contraction and time dilation), how can we measure the speed of light in units of distance (length) and time (seconds) and call that velocity (miles per second, or whatever units) "constant?" Just askin'... along with TAR, who seems to have tired the usual run around with no answers, I presume.

The geometry is the conceptual aspect of locus points, lines, planes, and volume(s). The time factor is elapsed time for everything that moves... i.e., everything. So geometry is the mental map and cosmology is how that is projected into “the reality of the cosmos”... if that even matters for “modern mental models” of geometry. How it corresponds with the cosmos seems secondary to the magic of math and the internal integrity of the model... here in this forum, anyway. Good math that predicts events requires good understanding of the world that math attempts to describe. The latter is about meaning and relevance to "the real world"*... assuming, of course, that there is a real world. *But that is where philosophy of science comes in. If that is assumed to be a discredited field of study... as in this forum... object of ridicule and all, then there can be no serious discussion of 'what it is' and 'how it works' ... if idealism is the only prevailing 'ideology' here. The physicists here (the ruling body) are driven to dominate the philosophy forum. Too bad. I'm getting tired of it.

You: Non-Euclidean geometry begins by abandoning Euclid’s fifth postulate and *assumes* that, under some imagined geometry and the math of “infinity," parallel lines do intersect. Of course, they would no longer be parallel, by Euclidean definition, if they intersected, so the first move in the transition to non-Euclidean, was to *assume* a new definition for parallel lines. I do not dispute that the latter was a reinvention of geometry, but I simply state that it was based on new *assumptions* dumping Euclid’s postulates. It also got rid of maybe the simplest principle in geometry, that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Swansont and I went a few rounds over this one. If you call the surface of a sphere a flat plane, then you can call lines drawn on it “straight lines,” but the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the sphere is still *straight through the sphere*, regardless of the intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature distinction made by non-Euclidean geometry, and covered in detail in Ross’ paper. Do you want to argue the semantics of “assumptions” or tell me where you think Ross was wrong, making his paper “crap?” While you are at it, how can parallel lines intersect and still be described as parallel? Do you understand intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature? Do you deny that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? The math is not the meaning. I have agreed over and over that clocks slow down, etc., etc, but question the ontology of "time dilation" as a reification of time. To say that "time slows down" is quite different than to say that "clocks slow down." The difference is important. One implication is that, once time is reifiied, the "possibility" arises that we can "travel through it" to the past or future. You run and hide whenever I mention this. Here it is again with the really beat to death example of Earth's diameter.** (Ref below) The diameter of Earth is a length, and Earth is not imaginary but a real body with an actual size and shape. You insist that "Length Is Not Invariant." The double negative means that length varies. So you insist that the diameter of Earth varies. That is the idealism of "no preferred frame of reference" in which the claim is that Earth IS how it is OBSERVED from different frames... therefore the shape of Earth varies with observation... which is false. OK. Again, I'm not an electrical engineer, and I will pick my brother's brain on it at first opportunity. This electrical nit picking was your derailment of my point, which still holds: that ammeters detect and measure the power of electric current in a wire or system... as a contrast with what clocks do (or not) with "time." Clocks tick. We can compare the conventional time units they tick off with other observed physical processes and then say that so much time elapsed. That is way different than the ammeter example. There is no explanation at all that I know of for "force across distance" in the examples I have used. That was my point. You and the other relativity advocates here are the ones saying that how it works doesn't matter as long as we can predict results. So it doesn't matter what 'spacetime' is or how mass curves it or how it guides objects into curved paths... as long as relativity is an improvement over Newtonian gravity theory... which it is. So, if Quantum theory of gravity with its "massless messenger particles", "gravitons" turns out to be another improvement, we can throw out GR's "spacetime." But we still will not know how mass attracts mass at a distance. ... You have in no way shown how (apparently) squeezed atomic nuclei in an accelerator transfers to an actually (not just apparently) "squeezed Earth." ... or how a massive rigid body like Earth could be so altered.... nor have you addressed the difference between "is very oblate" and "would appear very oblate", which is central to the difference between realism and the length contraction version of idealism which you promote. See ** above. The girth of Earth, of course, does not change with observational perspectives/frames. We use the word length (or distance) to describe that "girth", say its equatorial diameter. You say that length is variable with frame of reference. Earth may *appear* squished from extreme frames, but it Does Not change shape. ... more of the 'have you tested gravity in your living room' pseudo- argument. Yes. It is tested and verified with every step, as we all stick to what we are walking on. This is not an argument for flattened high speed nuclei applying to a flattened Earth, as seen from a high speed frame. This is going nowhere... still.

You clearly don't know what "an objective fact" is, which takes away you science credentials, if you had any. Take the first assumption which was the point of departure for non-Euclidean *assumptions.*: Euclid's fifth postulate is wrong. Parallel lines do cross... like mathematically... "in infinity." Good one. Do you agree, for starters? How about that curvature of space that gives us all these options for the 'shape of the cosmos?' We have "flat" (like a plane... how is that cosmos with volume?) We have a very nice spherical model. If you draw lines on the surface, they will be curved as arcs but straight lines if you pretend that the surface is flat, not curved. Then we have a very nicely shaped parabolic model of space or the shape of the cosmos. Kind of like a saddle that you could sit on comfortably. Cute. These assumptions are just non-Euclidean openers. So your "objective fact" about which assumptions are which is very clearly totally bogus. Make your case for how Ross is wrong. Or pack it in.

That would obviously be, again, your opinion, not a body of certain knowledge of which you are aware and I am not. I seriously doubt if you read the paper. If you did you didn't understand it. The assumptions made in the transition were all non-Euclidean assumptions. Like, 'parallel lines do, after all, intersect.' Or... just imagine a fourth spatial dimension.... Forget that three axes/dimensions describe space exhaustively already. Or, 'let's combine time (whatever it is) with space (whatever it is) and call it a four dimensional coordinate system...' and varieties of time/space manifolds are invented. Forget 'what is it?' ontology as long as the math workd out. Or...Now that mental dimensions are so popular, lets go with all metaphysical imaginary dimensions. That inspired M-Theory to invent seven more of them beyond 3-D space and time. This is not science. It's metaphysics using cryptic math symbols. It's "good" if left equals right on both sides of the 'equal' sign, ( all of this = all of that) even if there is no this and that. Read the paper and get back to me. Or just forget it if you have no interest in ontology as in the paper.

But you have. You ask honest questions, even if no one answers besides, 'here is yet another link on relativity.' For instance, your question about constant 'c', measured in what length and time units, if they vary with frame of reference... was a good one, but there was no direct reply. (Like so many miles per second for light, claimed as a constant, is not a constant if length contraction claims that miles vary in length and seconds expand/dilate. But nobody else here cares.) You know enough to ask questions which challenge authority, as above. That is enough. Thanks for your contributions.

This is the philosophy section. Philosophy examines the meaning of concepts like time and time travel. You misuse "ideology" as applied to me. You can't explain "what time is" (or "time travel") because the latter is b.s., an the former is all about matching up clock oscillations to observed natural physical processes. There is nothing about "time" that slows down. Processes slow down. This is an ontological distinction that has always eluded you. He is in Europe right now so it will not be very soon. As an engineer, I'm guessing that he will not give much credibility to what electrons "feel." Even I know about electric polarity... that positive and negative are mutually attracted by magnetic force. Why any of that requires length to get shorter is my question. me: What does that sum up, exactly? My brother and I saw how electricity and magnetism were "united" when we were kids cranking a horseshoe magnet generator together to see who turned loose first. How do magnets attract iron filings?... exactly... force across distance. (How does gravity work... force across distance. How do "entangled particles"... umm... "communicate" at a distance. But I forgot... "how?" does not interest you. You really have it backwards.* The “burden of proof”( that’s logic as a tool of reason... philosophy of science, where you are very weak and disdainful)... is on one (that would be you in this case) who makes the claim that the flattened Earth is an equally valid description... that with no evidence at all. *In your own words... this back at you...: “You show me the measurements that have been made in a moving frame, in order to support your claim.” Can you not even see how ridiculous it is to challenge me to prove your claim from extreme moving frames. Earth does not care how we observe it. But we have really good info on its shape from up close without the extreme frame *appearences* upon which you insist. Earth does not flatten because it is a massive rigid body with a very well known shape. Nuclei in an accelerator “flattening” on subatomic scale does not transfer to the macro world of spherical bodies like stars or planets, just because a fast moving observer (or abstract frame of reference) might “see” it that way. To claim that it does transfer requires a huge leap of unfounded extrapolation from the micro to the macro with no evidence at all to support the *assumption* that it applies. Edit: a request to admin: ('Hey Cap 'n!) I'd like to see a change: That each 'demerit' like I get quite often when anyone doesn't agree with me... requires a critical comment. Just so we know the merit of demerits, if any. If some idiot doesn't like my posts, that red -1 looks the same as if it came from a critic who was right about me being wrong. (It does happen.)

I am not an electrical engineer, so I can make no sense of how you say electromagnetism requires relativity, specifically length contraction. You will understand if I don’t just take your word for it. My brother is an electrical engineer, though, so I will ask him about it. Do “we” understand magnetism, if claiming we don’t is copping to magic? edit; swansont, 367: Study some *epistemology*. We have a huge amount of evidence that the Earth is nearly spherical and absolutely none that it is very oblate. Show me the evidence that a squished Earth is an equally valid description with what science already *knows* about its shape.

"Is like?" "Coordinates of variables?" ..."a negative direction"... in what matrix? How is time a matrix? Try to be a little more cryptic to make it even more difficult to understand what you mean. By no means will you answer my questions about time travel or Earth's "actual" shape directly? Duck and dodge. How about a little respect for what science discussions can be without ego battles. edit: Forgot a piece concerning: In what context was the first question? How is length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism? How do I reify length? I say it is the distance between two points or objects... like in the real world. What do you say, besides "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT?"... meaning all lengths of things and distances between things depend on how we look at them?

Philosophy of science examines the assumptions inherent in the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology, the latter being the basis for what you take for granted as a given above. I have studied that transition in depth. Go learn some “Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.” My favorite, often cited, is Kelley Ross’s paper, here: http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm Edit: It is quite a detailed and astute analysis, which will challenge your assumptions about non-Euclidean space. Here is his ending summary statement: me: If time travel were possible, it would require that time is 'something' (another 'whatever') through which can be traveled. You continue to hide behind the math. Can math get us "back in time" into the past or "forward in time" into the future or not? Then there is the unanswered "true shape of Earth" challenge. You said: I answer, based on realism, that the shape of Earth does not depend on how we look at it. The claim that it does is idealism, with "frame of reference" replacing "subject" (in subjective idealism), as the abstraction of 'frames' is understood. It behooves science to find the best way to look at it to determine its 'true shape.' That demands abandoning the dogma, "there is no preferred frame of reference", which length contraction advocates like you simply will not do. The high speed fly-by frame will not be "preferred" for that purpose by any scientist seeking to describe the objective world. Oh, but you don't seem to believe there is an objective world, since it all depends on observational perspective.

Very good questions. I'll be waiting with you for the way the answers are dodged. (Don't expect direct answers.) Although I didn't 'stamp' my last post 'properly', I'll be waiting for answers also to my question to the forum... Who thinks the Earth has a 'true shape' (intrinsic, etc) and who thinks it depends on how we look at it? Just looking to see if anyone here besides me is a lurking realist. My answer to your question is that moving faster relative to a stay-at-home twin will slow down the aging process for the traveler. She will not "get younger" as in reversing the aging process, but just age more slowly. So she will come back "younger" than her twin. Just my guess based on clocks slowing down in orbit, etc. compared to identical clocks on the surface, not having been accelerated to higher velocity. Ps: Readers of this thread will have noticed that someone (a long time stalker through a few forums, one with with a malicious personal agenda against me... not overstated!) seems to be 'threatening' me with exposure of my spiritual/ mystic interests, which I have never brought to this forum. Not appropriate. Neither are my many other interests outside of science. I would be more direct, but I meant it when I said that I would not reply (directly) to any more of his/her always- personally-attacking posts.

A quick reply, just passing by. More later maybe before the weekend. swansont: What might ‘it’ be if “time reversal” or some kind of "fast forward" were possible, "going back to the past" or "into the future?" The word “travel” has acquired a meaning... like from here to there or "from the present to the future or past." How about an honest conversation about what “time” must be to “travel” to the past or future? "A substance?" Like some idiot might believe? Seriously, what do you travel through if you travel through time? A simple question. How about a simple answer? Or is it all about math, and I simply don't speak the language? An obvious smoke screen... quite transparent. swansont: Most of science ( besides length contraction advocates) already knows Earth’s “true shape.” OK. Short of taking a forum poll, which I don’t know how to do, even if it were an option... How many here think that Earth has a “true shape?” “True” here means intrinsic or objective or independent of frame of reference from which it is measured. I will continue after folks here place their votes.

Are you sure? Maybe when you are not looking at it, it ceases to exist. Some idealists believe that crap! A realist like myself knows that the falling tree makes sound waves whether ears hear them or not. Squirrels , if present, will hear the sound, even if no all-important humans are around to decide whether or not the falling tree made a sound.

When non-Euclidean based physics and cosmology tells us that space has more than three dimensions, should ontology not ask to what a fourth axis/dimension refers... or seven more “dimensions” even after 3-D plus time as per M-theory? Do you think that it is irrelevant that math needs to refer to elements (in the broadest sense, referents) of the real world? Do you too think that the question, "What is spacetime, that 'it' is curved by mass?"... is irrelevant to science and to theories of gravity specifically? Do you think that SR theory and its math establishes that reality depends on frames of reference?... That the distances between stars varies with the frame of reference from which they are observed? And how about the old “shape of Earth” issue? Are the length contraction theory based descriptions (very oblate, etc.) equally valid with the well confirmed Earth science descriptions? Does “for a muon” count equally with atmospheric science in describing the distance through our atmosphere? Just a few philosophical questions to consider. Do you see any difference at all between my meters (and what they detect and measure 'in the world') and clocks as self-contained ticking instruments. Their oscillations are built in and the clock is designed to count them. Do they create time and then measure it? Is time then on an equal ontological status (and existing entity) with the forces and photons which my meters measure? If you don't see any difference, there is no use trying to explain the ontology of time any further. I understand the "adjusted output" concept. Same for GPS clocks. I still think that a time standard based on a master clock at sea level on the Equator and aligned with a distant star to mark 'one full rotation' would be an improved time reference for "a day" over the variety of present "clocked times" for a rotation, each requiring "adjustment." Aside from such fine points of adjustment, do you think that an Earth orbit (say an average over many years) is a good referent for "a year" when we say that Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away? Or can a year vary as much as my (above) ship's clock says and "make" A.C. a lot closer than that... and "elapsed time" to get there much shorter than 4.3 years... quite a lot faster than light? (Re my time travel question): So relativity says that time might be 'something' we could travel through, and you endorse that possibility? Yet you claim that you don't reify time? Yes. Here comes another game, one little piece at a time! Why don't you just ask, "If you own a clock"... whatever. No "my time is not universal time" (a misnomer) if that is where you are going. It's a good thing you don't claim expertise in philosophy of science. We would still believe that the Sun revolved around Earth if it were not 'science's job' to figure out the "reality" that it is the other way around! Same for the "flat Earth." Turns out it's nearly spherical, according to all scientific measurements taken so far... science doing its job!) These were science's answers to the questions, "What shape is Earth, 'really', and what revolves around what, 'really'?" Then there is, "How far to the Sun, 'really'? Does it vary with how it is observed? ("Length is Not Invariant", repeat...) Realism says no and idealism says yes. Realists say cosmos has intrinsic reality. Idealists say it all depends on frame of reference. The difference is important. You missed the part (earlier) about "What if there were no clocks?" Everything would still move as it does in the natural cosmos, and we can say that time elapses as things move, even without clocks "clocking" those movements at different rates. (More inscrutable philosophy.) Did you read my recent post on the relativity of velocity... all the way out to cosmic expansion 'relative to what'? How would "the whole thing" (cosmos and our little part of it) look to a comic intelligence? (Not that I am a theist.) We need to define our scope to make sense in science. For Earthlings, a year is one Earth orbit (standardized as best we can.) A year is not defined by the clocks on a fast spaceship. (More philosophical perspective.) I saw later (but didn't edit) that I had used the reciprocal of time dilation, length contraction, in my answer... If time "expands" distance traveled "contracts." Not a huge leap, but you are correct. The obvious point was that the ship's clock will have shown way less than 4.3 years passing. Clocks slowing down is what "passes for" time slowing down, so, therefore, "for the crew" they effectively traveled way faster than light and the distance traveled was way shorter than the well know (in astronomy anyway) 4.3 light years. Probably more than enough on that! It is more than language. The most popular cosmology of the Big Bang, for instance, claims that "space expanded" faster than light during the "early inflation period" of the cosmos. M-theory has 11 dimensions of space. It's metaphysics based on the magic of math, but it has no meaning or possibility of falsification/verification. Yet it parades around as science. Study some ontology of space as relevant to cosmology. See my last sentence above. Real things exist in empty volume ...space. (Not empty where occupied, obviously.) Between these things is length or distance, as recently defined and discussed, which I will not repeat yet again. We "measure" cosmic distances in light years. Light speed is constant, so, in the real cosmos, the real distance to our nearest neighbor star is 4.3 lightyears. It would not become closer if a fast ship traveled to it... as beat to death above. "For the ship's crew" does not define the actual distance, in spite of your belief that there is no such thing as actual distance. ("Length is Not Invariant.") Right. It's all in the math. No ontology of what they are in "the real world" required. No "true shapes of cosmic bodies" or actual distances between them. And maybe time is a "timescape" after all, and we can travel back to the Bang and get the real scoop on it, and forward to see if it all runs down (entropy) or turns around and comes back. Great for science fiction, but it still ain't science. I should not have used the term “force.” Since nobody knows why clocks slow down with increased velocity and gravity, honest science should acknowledge that it remains a mystery and not say that “relativity” causes it. Like “spacetime” remains just a “whatever” with alternative theories of gravity, like “gravitons.” "Relativity makes it happen" is still not an answer. I've mentioned this quite a few times before. I have studied science all my life since I was old enough to be curious about the world/cosmos, and I am an old codger. I have taught philosophy of science with a focus on how reason and logic and the ontology of what things are and what key words mean all still applies. Your misrepresentation of me does not make it true.

Maybe the above reply explained it. If not... I dunno. Allow a non-sequitur. Do you believe that time travel is possible? This is important for the issue of time reification. I find your level of comprehension of what I say very discouraging. Realism... Try to imagine beyond frames of reference observing different shapes of Earth... to the possibility of a "true shape of Earth" which it is the job of science to discern. This might help. (tho it has not before...): Try very hard to imagine a cosmos with no intelligent life. Got it? (Or can there be no unobserved cosmos... How absurd is that?!) Did we intelligent observers create the Earth and cosmos by observing it... being different from all points of view? I hope you agree that we didn't. So with or without our clocks ticking out the hours in a day, variously from different 'environments', and with or without life on Earth, for that matter, realism is the real-ization that the elapsed time for an Earth rotation is what it is, independent of measurement. It need not be 'called' 24 hours or any of its fractions which clocks "measure" differently as to their inertial enviroment. There you go again! There is no actual distance ("Length is Not Invarient"... repeat, "Length is Not Invarient", ... repeat)... to Alpha Centauri, as astronomy asserts... (4.3 lightyears as measured by the constant speed of light.) It all depends on frame of reference. Cosmos has no intrinsic reality. We humans create our own reality... at our own leisure... according to the speed we choose to travel. Idealism..... vs Realism. 'We can make the trip much faster than light, because our clocks tell us so.' This is way over the top, philosophically, and you can't even see it. Visit the "something from nothing" thread in this section. Physicists attribute "properties" to space (curvature, shape, expandability.) That, ontologically makes space an entity. It reifies space. Maybe you should brush up on, or a least begin to study some ontology. (Don't tell your physics friends!) Space is empty volume. (Volume has three axes, called "dimensions.") How real do you think empty space is? Empty means no things. Of course, where there are "things" space is not empty. (Basics seem important here... like ontology of space from scratch.) Anyway, since space is volume and distance between points or objects in space is a straight line (one dimensional) I call that aspect of the volume between objects "the linear component of space"... length or distance. Review my very recent post on the relativity of velocity (what relative to what.) Ask if you need directions. Very tired of repeating. Yes, yet again, do you pretend to know how gravity or acceleration and different velocities effects clock rates? I've asked three times now for you to tell us all if you know. X 99 or so... I do not deny relativity*. How dense can you be?! *I deny "time dilation", "length contraction", and (as per GR,) "curved spacetime." The rest of last paragraph was unintelligible. But there is probably no point anyway... because there is no communication here, even when I 'ask nice' and repeatedly for replies to my inquiries and challenges. Is "relativity" an answer to what forces slow clocks down at high speeds and gravity fields? Hell no! Get a grip. Learn some ontology and respect for philosophy of science!

To which “we” do you refer as not understanding what time really is?” Maybe you really meant, “ As long as I don’t understand what time really is...” This reply is a bit of philosophy of time. (That will put off the superior physicists!... A very small joke.) The discussion is a waste of time for those who reifiy time. That is how we got "time travel" as a pseudo- 'scientifically approved’ possibility promoted from an artifact and tool of science fiction. This is about the fictional “timescape” which reifies it into a kind of terrain we can travel through. Who here “believes in” time travel? Hawking does, but he is very imaginative and over- rated as a cosmologist in my opinion. But right now, in sanctioned relativity theory, we have text book “time dilation” which allows clocks (ticking at different rates) to “measure” time and give various “elapsed times” for what a “day” and “year” is. I’ll go with one Earth rotation as a “day.” I would measure that rotation in units of time on a “master clock” (designated by agreement among geo-physical scientists) on the Equator at sea level with a reference point (for one rotation) in deep space, a distant star. Then clocks can “tick away” in whatever inertial environment we place them and we could have a standardized designation for “one day or year” (in all familiar fractional units) to which the various other clocks could synchronize... with appropriate conversion factors from relativity’s math... without the reification of “time dilation”... and stupidest of all... “length contraction.” Oopse! all the last about time should hve been in my 'philosophy as relevant...' thread. Will move it as 'time' allows.

Yes. But which is harder to imagine/believe: That the whole universe popped into existence out of nothing (thread title) or that the universal law of conservation of energy/matter is true and requires an eternal cosmos? The former is the equivalent of "god created it all," but for "lets just say we don't know what this agent of creation is." As I said, a cosmic beginning and ending is a product of linear thinking.

I answered this already maybe a dozen or so times if you include the Earth's direction of spin... same principle. Read my posts to TAR clarifying my answers. Basic realism: Earth's directions of spin and orbit do not depend on how we look at them. Clockwise and counterclockwise are observation dependent terms. The "direction" depends on our perspective in each case. Another repeat, just for you: From above the North Pole, Earth is spinning counterclockwise. From above the South Pole, Earth is spinning clockwise. Obviously Earth does not reverse direction of spin. Same goes for direction of Earth's orbit around the Sun as seen from above Suns' North Pole... counterclockwise.... That means, from the side of the plane of the ecliptic corresponding with Earth's North Pole Here is Wikipedia on Earth's Orbit; (I didn't invent the concept): My point, which you attempted to avoid by bickering about the difference between detection and measurement, was this: Ammeters (tks for spelling correction) measure electric current. We all know what that is without bickering about whether or not it is a thing. (I say yes. Forces/currents are also things.) Light meters measure "how much light" is reflected from a subject of photography, for instance. Yes, light is a thing. Both instruments are engineered to "detect and measure" those "things." Clocks are engineered to oscillate as precisely regularly as possible. Yes, oscillations are things too. But clocks are not designed to detect or measure anything. We just record the 'seconds' and 'minutes' and 'hours' they tick off as other physical events happen and assign duration to the latter events... and we call it elapsed time. ( Or, regardless of "clocking events" as above, clocks will "tick off" seconds and minutes and hours, as they are designed to do. Very elementary.) I have studied many authors on the ontology of time over the years, and yours is a prime example of the reification of time. I gave two very clear examples. I'll repeat them. Two clocks at different velocities will "clock" one rotation of Earth differently. If time is "that which clocks measure," then the elapsed time for on rotation, a day, will vary with which clock is measuring it. But that is clearly false, as it reifies "clock time" and ignores the fact that an Earth day has its own elapsed time, not depending on how variably it is measured. It would be the same elapsed time, event duration of the physical process of rotating, in the real world without clocks clocking it. You never replied to this point. You will most likely avoid it again. The other example was elapsed time for a high speed trip to Alpha Centauri. It takes light 4.3 years to go the distance. (Yes, distance is a real "thing"... the linear component of the space between points or objects. But stars don't move closer together or further apart with the bogus concept of length contraction.) A high speed ship must go less than lightspeed, so therefore it will take the ship more than 4.3 years to get there. That is logic. But the ship's clock will have slowed down and will tell the crew that less that 4.3 years have "passed." Clock's rates of ticking vary at different velocities... We agree on that. What "passed" above,... a fraction of 4.3 years or more than 4.3 years? Answer that and you may see how you reify time. See my detailed explanation above. You placed an item next to a meter stick and then referred to "The difference in the endpoints." I took it to mean between endpoint of the meter stick and endpoint of the 60 cm item... 40 cm, and you sounded confused. Length is a measure of distance... one end of the meter rod to the other or from here to the closest star. Contrary to the claims of length contraction, the meter rod does not shrink when observed from a high speed reference frame, and neither does the distance to Alpha Centauri. (Ho hum. Boring.) I include high velocity and high gravity fields as different environments, which I thought was obvious. I said (several times) that I don't know how the above changes in environment effect the rate of oscillation in clocks. I asked you to "enlighten all of us" if you do know. No answer, as usual.

Who said anything about a container? Not me. I said: I have not fabricated any container. Mystics understand, by direct experience, consciousness with no content... awareness sans the usual 'what we are aware of'... thoughts, images, concepts, mental 'things.' Why do you say that I need to "shed" what I never wore... belief that nothingness/void needs a container? Space is emptiness. Stuff, things/energy/forces, exist in space. Obviously, where occupied by things, it is not empty. There is no possible "end of space." Space must be infinite, because on the "other side" of any imaginary boundary or "container" is.... nobody knows... even if nothing, that is just more space. Now do you understand what I meant? No container.

A philosophical side note here: "Relative to what?" is a very basic question in the physics of velocity and in the larger scope of cosmology. We all (most of us anyway) know the basics of "velocity relative to what?" The moving car rel. to the road. A milepost on the road rel. to the center of our spinning Earth. Earth relative to Sun. Sun rel. to center of Milky Way Galaxy. All galaxies are moving away from each other at whatever velocity rel. to each other (combined vectors rel. to an abstract mid-point, maybe.) And what about cosmic expansion rate?? Relative to what? Relativity theorists should ask themselves what the scope of the theory covers. Beyond an imagined (sorry, 'theorized') "shape of the cosmos"... just infinite empty space or more cosmoses (cosmi ?) like (or very different than) ours. For those who think all serious science is contained in equations... philosophy... even "free thinking" or simply "musing" has a place in the vision which leads science to new discoveries. End of sermon... or speculation... or whatever. It's "just philosophy." Easily dismissed as "navel gazing."

Interesting for me too. You have just defined ontology in your own way. How "things" are defined is ontology. How "no thing" (nothing) is defined is ontology. Sorting out the differences between concepts/theories and the world as it is, which science tries to comprehend, is the job of both scientists and philosophers. I'd like to see the war between science (specifically physicists/mathematicians) and philosophers of science... over. (Wrong thread for that comment. Sorry.) Mystics seem to understand the 'void' the lack of "things" , emptiness... better than physicists, as I understand the concepts. Where there are no "things"... no-thing-ness remains.

Swansont: You have no idea what details I know and don’t know. Both meters measure ‘things.” * Clocks don’t. The “things they measure, as per your nit picking: So you derail the 'what clocks measure' (or not!) point with this about what real meters detect vs what they measure. Sorry, just more avoidance of the point that the two meters detect/measure forces/photons, etc. and that clocks detect/measure nothing. They are simply engineered to “tick.” The ontology of time is again/still over your head. S: Right. The real world has these forces and photons and distances between objects which real meters detect (in whatever technical form) and measure and which lightspeed can measure as lightyears on cosmic scale, rather than a whole lot of meter sticks. Clocks are not meters detecting and measuring “time.” It might be difficult for you, but you could concede the point. Clocks neither detect or measure anything. To claim that they do reifys time. So now a meter stick is 120 cm long, or did I misunderstand what your “endpoints” were? Par for the course for no communication between us. I would have thought that 40 cm would be the difference. (Trivial... so you mis-spoke, I presume.) S: Like I said, engineered to tick... Unlike meters which are engineered to detect and measure things/forces. So we can compare clocks in different frames and get different elapsed times for such natural events as an Earth rotation, because they vary in rates of ticking. Earth does not vary in elapsed time for a rotation. Can you still not grasp the difference? Same with the meter stick. It gives us a standardized measure of length with which we can “measure” distances, as I covered in detail in last post. Simple. But Earth’s size does not change with variations in the appearance of a meter stick from extreme frames. (Realism. Applied philosophy of science.) S: Well specified are they... except that they vary a lot in different environments... unlike the natural elapsed time of events which clocks are said to "measure" and to which they assign time units. Take an Earth rotation... variable in reality as according to different clocks or not? How long would it take to get to Alpha Centauri at sub-light speed... in the real cosmos? A lot less that 4.3 years, as according to the ship clock/calendar and "contracted length" or a lot more because it can't go faster than light, which requires 4.3 years to travel the actual distance. I know, you don't believe in actual distance, but that is where realism differs from length contraction idealism... that it all depends on frame of reference. I will wait breathlessly for your answer to the above challenge. "LOL." (First ever usage for me. I usually just chuckle quietly under such sniper fire.) I have "admitted" many times that I not only disagree with the "no preferred frame of reference dictum" but insist that as close as we can get to an at rest frame with the object/distance measured is "preferable." The principles of experimental design are quite reasonable. "What shape is Earth?" What frame of reference will give us the most accurate results to answer that question? Yada yada. (Too many repetitons already.) How thick is Earth's atmosphere? Shall we go with all the observations known to Earth science or look at it from a muon's frame? Natural muons in the atmosphere "live" longer that lab muons in an accelerator, so they say. So they travel further than expected, based on the latter, shorter 'lifespan.' 'So, therefore Earth's atmosphere is a lot thinner (shorter distance through it) than what atmospheric science has known for a long time. This is how philosophy of science can help us understand such absurd assumptions as "for a muon" (it's a very much thinner atmosphere)... after all, their frame of reference is "equally valid" according to the length contraction theory of SR.

The meters detect power and light, respectively. A meter stick is laid end to end over the distance measured and multiplied by how many it took to go the distance (or what fraction of the stick a shorter distance occupied.) All quite obvious. So what was your point? What do you think clocks detect? Are they "chronometers" in the same sense as the above two meters detect power and light, i.e., is "time" a detectable entity/force as they are? No.

Agreed. Also agreeing with TAR. Yes. Like “time,” space is reified by giving it properties like shape and ability to expand. If space is absence of ‘things” then there is no “it” with such properties. So nothing still means no thing. So how did “things” (matter/energy) appear ‘in the first place,' so to speak? In an eternal cosmos, there is no beginning , no “in the first place.” So where was “it all” before the Bang? Sitting still waiting for “the beginning”... or magically appearing “out of no-thing-ness? I don’t think so. Bang/Crunch is the only cosmology, therefore, that makes sense to me. And I am confident that the "bugs" will eventually be worked out.

I said that I am done with this, but I changed my mind. I suggest you brush up on Earth science by a search for "measuring earth" sites and links. There are a lot of them and they all agree on the size and shape of Earth. For some reason, none of the measurements were based on a very high speed fly-by of Earth. You seem to be still missing my main point, which I had italicized in the post you quoted. One more time: Realism says that point of view or frame of reference does not change the physical nature of whatever is being observed, even though things will look different from different perspectives/frames of reference. My continuing argument here with advocates of length contraction and time dilation is based on their claim that a very oblate spheroid is an equally valid description of Earth with Earth science's nearly spherical description. Their claim is based on the SR dictum that there are no preferred frames of reference, ergo, a flattened (appearing) Earth is just as valid. The same argument applies to "time dilation." If one Earth rotation on its axis is "timed" or "clocked" from a high speed frame of reference, the clock will slow down and give a "clocked time" for "a day" substantially less than that given by a clock on the surface for one rotation. (I have advocated that our best clocks placed at sea level on the equator would be the best way to establish a standardized "day." A far away star would be the point of reference for one of those, say the master clock.) Edit: Btw, I recently made the point (as per "measuring time") that clocks just tick... at different rates with gravity and velocity. So relativity does a good job of 'correcting' for all those differences and making GPS, among many other things, work quite precisely. But clocks do not "measure time" in the same sense that amp meters measure electrical power of light meters measure light intensity. So confuses arises as if clocks measured something like light intensity or electric power. This reifiys time by "making something of it." So if "time is that which clocks measure" and they "measure" different elapsed times for an Earth rotation, the confusion lies in different lengths for "a day" as measured by different clocks, as above. But in the "real world", the elapsed time for one Earth rotation does not change with those different "measurements." I hope this clears up my points about length contraction and time dilation, because the above is the best I can do, and I have hammered on it in many threads over quite some 'time' (that which elapsed since my first argument.)