Frame of Reference as Subject in Subjective Idealism

[owl]

Well, it is.

 

But I can take the squished Earth and use the relative velocity between Earth and observer to calculate what an observer sitting on Earth would see, and I would calculate that he'd see something very nearly spherical.

So, back to subjective idealism, it claims that there is no "objective universe" because each person sees things differently, and that is "reality" for each individual, and, further, there is no way to know what is "real" besides subjective perception.

If we substitute frame of reference for person (or subject) above we get the title of this thread. If you insist that a squished earth describes "reality" on equal basis with a spherical earth, because the math of relativity says so (which you can calculate and I can't), then there is no description of earth "as it is" (philosophy of realism), but rather all frames of reference... individual perspectives/perceptions (and descriptions of the world) are equally valid.

I had thought the "transformation" principle was going to reconcile the above, given your disclaimer that length contraction is not a form of subjective idealism. But the fact that earth science has thoroughly established earth as nearly spherical ever since we got over the flat earth mis-perception does not dissuade you from claiming equal reality quotient for a squished earth.

So we are back to frame of reference as subjective idealism.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Earth science has thoroughly established Earth as nearly spherical in our reference frame. A physicist can tell you exactly what it will look like in any other reference frame.

 

I suppose one could make an analogy to looking at a sculpture. If I stand at one angle and view a sculpture, I see a certain view; if someone else stands on the other side, they see something markedly different. However, if I have knowledge of the shape of the sculpture, I can tell you how it will look from any angle, and the varied appearances do not mean that the reality of the sculpture is entirely in my mind.

[owl]

Earth science has thoroughly established Earth as nearly spherical in our reference frame. A physicist can tell you exactly what it will look like in any other reference frame.

 

I suppose one could make an analogy to looking at a sculpture. If I stand at one angle and view a sculpture, I see a certain view; if someone else stands on the other side, they see something markedly different. However, if I have knowledge of the shape of the sculpture, I can tell you how it will look from any angle, and the varied appearances do not mean that the reality of the sculpture is entirely in my mind.

So the issue is about what it looks like (from various frames) compared to what it is, "objectively" independent of the variety of perspectives from which it is seen... as per philosophical realism, my argument.

You started with:"Earth science has thoroughly established Earth as nearly spherical." Then you added the philosophical disclaimer (which sounds very much like subjective idealism,) "in our frame of reference" with the relativistic understanding that "all frames of reference are equally valid" (not quoting you but true to relativity theory.)

If all frames of reference are equally valid then relativity theory is philosophically identical with subjective idealism.

 

And we can ignore all the evidence to the contrary about what we KNOW about earth's shape and size, and give the earth a squished shape ("equally valid") and 'worship at the altar of relativity theory.'

 

(Who would question Einstein and his disciples? I will, for one.)

 

Hopefully you will not vilify (and ban) me for the above heresy (between the half quotes.)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How can relativity be considered subjective idealism if "reality" as seen from any reference frame is inextricably mathematically related to the "reality" observed in another reference frame, independent of the perceptions and thoughts of the observers that exist in that frame?

 

Subjective idealism would seem to suggest that observations in any reference frame could just be anything, since reality is but a perception of our mind. But no, we find that our observations correlate in a much deeper way.

 

Also, I'm offended by the insinuation that I am petty enough to ban someone for a slightly snide remark. We do not punish people for making mildly derogatory remarks about things they do not fully understand.

[swansont]

And we can ignore all the evidence to the contrary about what we KNOW about earth's shape and size, and give the earth a squished shape ("equally valid") and 'worship at the altar of relativity theory.'

 

(Who would question Einstein and his disciples? I will, for one.)

 

Hopefully you will not vilify (and ban) me for the above heresy (between the half quotes.)

What evidence to the contrary? You haven't presented any evidence of the shape of the earth as measured from another reference frame.

 

Equating science with religion as an attempt to smear it isn't a very high standard of debate. It's rather disappointing.

[owl]

Cap ‘n R:

But no, we find that our observations correlate in a much deeper way.

 

But they don’t co-relate deeply enough to recognize that earth has* a given shape (nearly spherical) all by itself ("an objective earth"), independent of frames of reference from which it is seen (*and has had long before relativistic frames of reference were even thought of.)

 

Also, I'm offended by the insinuation that I am petty enough to ban someone for a slightly snide remark. We do not punish people for making mildly derogatory remarks about things they do not fully understand.

 

I meant no offense to you personally. My previous comments about time dilation and length contraction as relativity dogma ignoring reasonable intelligence and common scientific knowledge (shape of earth and length of a meter rod for instance)... was met with harsh criticism here by the one that seems to do most of the warning and banning, insulting me and intimidating of anyone who agrees with me and criticizes the mainstream opinion.

 

swansont:

What evidence to the contrary? You haven't presented any evidence of the shape of

the earth as measured from another reference frame.

 

From my post 36 above:

 

... we know from the whole field of earth science that it is a relatively rigid and nearly spherical body.

 

What objective tests? The orbit of satellites would be radically different if earth were an oblate spheroid. The view of earth from the space station would not see a round (spherical) earth if the extreme frame were an accurate description. Mechanically, we know that earth does not actually flatten out, because we know it is a semi-rigid body. The surface survey which yielded the standardized, earth commensurate meter would have found a different length if earth had a way longer axis length than girth through the equator, or vice-versa. How many more objective tests would it take to establish the “true shape and size” of our planet?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But they don’t co-relate deeply enough to recognize that earth has* a given shape (nearly spherical) all by itself ("an objective earth"), independent of frames of reference from which it is seen (*and has had long before relativistic frames of reference were even thought of.)

That's because it doesn't.

 

Regardless, that doesn't contradict my point; they do correlate exactly, in that I can transform observations between reference frames and get exactly the correct answer. That's hardly subjective, is it?

 

I meant no offense to you personally. My previous comments about time dilation and length contraction as relativity dogma ignoring reasonable intelligence and common scientific knowledge (shape of earth and length of a meter rod for instance)... was met with harsh criticism here by the one that seems to do most of the warning and banning, insulting me and intimidating of anyone who agrees with me and criticizes the mainstream opinion.

Any bans on SFN are made with the agreement of multiple staff members. Nobody is banned for being wrong or against the mainstream; they are, however, warned for presenting incorrect or unproven ideas as the answer to a discussion in the mainstream science sections of the site.

[swansont]

But they don’t co-relate deeply enough to recognize that earth has* a given shape (nearly spherical) all by itself ("an objective earth"), independent of frames of reference from which it is seen (*and has had long before relativistic frames of reference were even thought of.)

 

We had spaceflight and were capable of measuring the earth from a high-speed frame of reference long before relativistic frames were thought of? Or did you mean recognize in the way that people once recognized that there were four elements and the sun went around the earth?

 

I meant no offense to you personally. My previous comments about time dilation and length contraction as relativity dogma ignoring reasonable intelligence and common scientific knowledge (shape of earth and length of a meter rod for instance)... was met with harsh criticism here by the one that seems to do most of the warning and banning, insulting me and intimidating of anyone who agrees with me and criticizes the mainstream opinion.

 

Ah, so you meant it to me, personally. Unsubstantiated accusations noted.

 

It's not dogma since there is evidence that supports the theory. Relativity was not declared by fiat. Science doesn't work that way.

 

From my post 36 above:

 

That doesn't address the question. Your scenario is a rocket fast enough that relativity predicts significant contraction (by a factor of around 8). That experiment has not been done, so you have no evidence that there is no distortion. You have presented no scientific theory that predicts there would be no distortion. All you have is an assertion based on your philosophy, i.e. based on what you imagine it to be. People imagine that perpetual motion machines will work, too, but they never do. The proof is in the evidence. I have evidence that nature behaves according to relativity. You have not presented any evidence that it behaves some other way.

[owl]

Cap ‘n R:

That's because it doesn't.

 

(have a given shape... nearly spherical "all by itself,” as an objective object.)

So you continue to deny what earth science knows about earth’s shape in favor of calculations and resulting appearances based on Lorentz contraction applied to large scale objects, which has no experimental evidence to support it.

 

Regardless, however, that doesn't contradict my point; they do correlate exactly, in that I can transform observations between reference frames and get exactly the correct answer. That's hardly subjective, is it?

 

It is subjective to deny the well known and scientifically validated shape of earth and claim that a squished earth is equally valid “for the high speed observer,” where frame of reference substitutes for subjective perception as “reality” in subjective idealism.

 

I thought we were making progress in mutual understanding via “transforming” what the high speed observer would see, by a precise relativity formula, into what shape earth actually is in the objective universe (nearly spherical), thereby translating or adjusting

the “appearance” of earth at high speed into the actual, factual earth known to earth science, thereby ending up “on the same page.”

But you continue to deny that there is an objective earth with spherical shape, which makes relativity (specifically length contraction) sound like dogma in denial of facts.

 

swansont:

That doesn't address the question. Your scenario is a rocket fast enough that relativity predicts significant contraction (by a factor of around 8). That experiment has not been done, so you have no evidence that there is no distortion.

You have presented no scientific theory that predicts there would be no distortion.

All you have is an assertion based on your philosophy, i.e. based on what you imagine it to be. People imagine that perpetual motion machines will work, too, but they never do. The proof is in the evidence. I have evidence that nature behaves according to relativity. You have not presented any evidence that it behaves some

other way.

 

Since “that experiment has not been done,” you have no evidence that there is such distortion. Tell me how I am wrong here, but you seem to have the burden of proof for large scale length contraction exactly backwards.

Further, if it turned out that there was such distortion (say, showing a meter rod one eight of a meter long or an earth diameter contracted by a factor of 8), the operative word here remains “distortion.” Neither the meter rod not the earth would actually shrink, unless you think perception/appearance in this case creates an alternative “reality”, as in subjective idealism.

 

me:

But they don’t co-relate deeply enough to recognize that earth has* a given shape (nearly spherical) all by itself ("an objective earth"), independent of frames of reference from which it is seen (*and has had long before relativistic frames of reference were even thought of.)

you:

We had spaceflight and were capable of measuring the earth from a high-speed frame of reference long before relativistic frames were thought of? Or did you mean recognize in the way that people once recognized that there were four elements and the sun went around the earth?

 

Huh? I reasonably assume that earth has had nearly the same shape (not shifting with various perceptions of it) since long before either spaceflight or relativity theory. Did you not understand that, or are you intentionally “distorting” my meaning?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

(have a given shape... nearly spherical "all by itself,” as an objective object.)

So you continue to deny what earth science knows about earth’s shape in favor of calculations and resulting appearances based on Lorentz contraction applied to large scale objects, which has no experimental evidence to support it.

Nope. Earth science is right... in this reference frame. Any observations Earth scientists make in this reference frame do not prove anything about how Earth appears to someone in a different reference frame. Your argument is like saying "I've stared at this side of the statue for four hundred years, so you can't possibly be correct about what's on the other side, which I have not yet looked at!"

 

Lorentz contraction of spaces 200 miles wide is known to exist, given the muon experiments mentioned earlier -- the muons enter the atmosphere many miles up, and reach the ground. They find that that significant distance is contracted.

 

You're the one denying the substantial evidence for all parts of relativity.

[owl]

Cap 'n R:

Nope. Earth science is right... in this reference frame. Any observations Earth scientists make in this reference frame do not prove anything about how Earth appears to someone in a different reference frame. Your argument is like saying "I've stared at this side of the statue for four hundred years, so you can't possibly be correct about what's on the other side, which I have not yet looked at!"

 

Isn't "the statue" the earth in this case, about which we know a lot, from all 'angles' and from a lot of scientific examination, as you acknowledge above?

And if it appears distorted as in the high speed fly-by (which I do not doubt it would), why then do we not accept the "objective earth" as known through earth science as its actual shape** and call the former perspective a "distortion" of the image of earth due to the near 'C' relativity effect?

Then we avoid the subjective idealism absurdity of claiming, in general, that all perceptions (frames of reference) equally and accurately describe earth, and there is no "actual, objective earth" (as it is independent of various perspectives.)

 

Lorentz contraction of spaces 200 miles wide is known to exist, given the muon experiments mentioned earlier -- the muons enter the atmosphere many miles up, and reach the ground. They find that that significant distance is contracted.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but they find that naturally occurring muons traveling through the atmosphere have a much longer "lifespan" than lab muons in a particle accelerator. The assumption here is that the lifespan is a given, referencing lab muons, so they must be traveling a shorter (contracted) distance through the 200 or so miles thick atmosphere. How do lab muons get to be the standard lifespan in the first place? Second, how does the atmosphere get thinner (contracted distance of travel) around muons?

 

You're the one denying the substantial evidence for all parts of relativity.

 

I don't deny what it does well, only its assumptions about length contraction and time dilation (and of course, "spacetime" as a very mysterious malleable medium.)

 

**

www.universetoday.com/15055/diameter-of-earth/ - CachedSimilar

Jun 14, 2008 – The equatorial diameter of Earth is 12756 km, its polar diameter is 12713 ... diameter, which is referred to in common usage, is 12742 km. ...

 

Wikipedia: (Earth, Shape section.)

The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.[62] This bulge results from the rotation of the Earth, and causes the diameter at the equator to be 43 km larger than the pole to pole diameter.[63] The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12],742 km, which is approximately 40,000 km/π, as the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the North Pole through Paris, France.[64

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Isn't "the statue" the earth in this case, about which we know a lot, from all 'angles' and from a lot of scientific examination, as you acknowledge above?

Different angles are different reference frames, in this analogy. You've only examined Earth from one.

 

And if it appears distorted as in the high speed fly-by (which I do not doubt it would), why then do we not accept the "objective earth" as known through earth science as its actual shape** and call the former perspective a "distortion" of the image of earth due to the near 'C' relativity effect?

This should be very clear from my earlier "jest." Why do you think we should choose the "objective earth", in Earth's reference frame, when Earth is hurtling at high speeds through the universe compared to many other astronomical objects? You're just choosing an Earth-centric point of view.

 

Then we avoid the subjective idealism absurdity of claiming, in general, that all perceptions (frames of reference) equally and accurately describe earth, and there is no "actual, objective earth" (as it is independent of various perspectives.)

You still haven't answered how subjective idealism can work when the viewpoint from different reference frames is deterministic.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but they find that naturally occurring muons traveling through the atmosphere have a much longer "lifespan" than lab muons in a particle accelerator. The assumption here is that the lifespan is a given, referencing lab muons, so they must be traveling a shorter (contracted) distance through the 200 or so miles thick atmosphere. How do lab muons get to be the standard lifespan in the first place? Second, how does the atmosphere get thinner (contracted distance of travel) around muons?

The atmosphere doesn't "get" thinner; it is thinner in their reference frame. You can view the problem in two ways: as a matter of lifespan, or a matter of length contraction. It merely depends on the reference frame you choose.

 

I will be out of town until Tuesday.

[owl]

Cap ‘n R;

This should be very clear from my earlier "jest." Why do you think we should choose the "objective earth", in Earth's reference frame, when Earth is hurtling at high speeds through the universe compared to many other astronomical objects? You're just choosing an Earth-centric point of view.

 

Of course I am. In keeping with the argument that the closer the observation platform (closest being at rest with the object of observation), the more accurate the measure... the more true to the objective properties of the object observed. (Assuming, of course that the object observed has objective existence and properties independent of exotic frames of reference from which it is seen.)

 

I’m still not clear where you are on the above “objective world” vs the subjective (frame of reference) perception as "reality."

 

 

You still haven't answered how subjective idealism can work when the viewpoint from different reference frames is deterministic.

 

What do you mean by deterministic? There is a lot of debate on what that means.

Different “viewpoints” as equally valid descriptions of what is seen is the essence of subjective idealism (denying "objective reality.") You seem to subscribe to the above, as a follower and well educated scholar of relativity in all respects, including length contraction.

 

The atmosphere doesn't "get" thinner; it is thinner in their reference frame.

 

“For the muons” the distance through the atmosphere is shorter (length contracted) than the 200 miles of atmosphere which science says is its depth/thickness...?

 

More of the magic/dogma of relativity?... which grants equality to all frames of reference and ignores what we know about the world/universe, as cited in the earth science above. (Relativity dogma: "There are no preferred frames of reference."... sounds like an "article of faith!", not science.)

 

“For a photon” ...( like “for a muon”... thinner, contracted atmosphere)... there is no distance or travel time between earth and sun. What are you going to believe? Think it over again in philosophical context. Are you a subjective idealist?

 

I don’t believe either scenario... " for a muon” or” for a photon” as legitimate and accurate views (frames of reference) of those distances.

The atmosphere stays about 200 miles thick and the distance between sun and earth stays about the average upon which "one AU” or 93 million miles is based... not 1/8 of it, etc. "for a high speed traveler."

 

The atmosphere doesn't "get" thinner; it is thinner in their reference frame.

 

The atmosphere of earth is not thinner to accommodate "length contraction" theory for incoming muons.

"All frames of reference are equal" is subjective idealism.

 

Put on your philosophy of science "hat" for a moment, setting aside relativity dogma (as I see it, of course, in this case), and speak to the topic here presented... please.

Edited July 23, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

More of the magic/dogma of relativity?... which grants equality to all frames of reference and ignores what we know about the world/universe, as cited in the earth science above. (Relativity dogma: "There are no preferred frames of reference."... sounds like an "article of faith!", not science.)

No, it's one of the postulates. Which, along with the constance of c, lead to testable predictions. And when they are tested, they match the predictions, and not the predictions of other models. Since these tests occur, it's not dogma and it's not an article of faith. I can see how it seems like magic when you don't understand, though (like Clarke's Law)

 

Go ahead and question experiments and why they confirm relativity. Want to discuss the Hafele-Keating experiment? Fine. But attempting to poison the well by calling it dogma, magic and article of faith is in fact a rules violation: logical fallacies are not tolerated. I can't really stop you from pretending that you're being persecuted for "attacking the dogma" but the simple fact is that if you ever do get into official trouble it will be for violating the rules that are present to protect discussions from intellectually dishonesty.

[owl]

I'd better just stick to the philosophy intended in the thread title.

Awhile back in this thread, Cap 'n R summed up the relativity notion of variability of what IS as tied to variability of frame of reference (pertaining to earth) as follows:

 

The Earth does not deform.

When viewed from another reference frame, it IS a different shape. It has always been that shape and it always will be, in that reference frame. That is why Earth's rigidity does not enter into it.

(My emphasis.)

Definition of philosophical realism from Wikipedia:

 

Realism, Realist or Realistic are terms that describe any manifestation of philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers, whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences. In this broad sense it is frequently contrasted with Idealism.

(Again, my emphasis.)

 

So when anyone (including relativity theorists) asserts that earth IS an extremely flattened oblate spheroid (say with diameter 1/8 the earth science measures given in my post of yesterday)... "for the high speed traveler" or "in his frame of reference"... this certainly qualifies as subjective idealism*, in that the claim is that the earth IS as he sees it, and there is no "objective earth" as it IS independent of perception.

*... with "frame of reference" substituted for "subjective" regardless of the presence of a personal observer.

 

This is probably enough said on the subject.

[tar]

Cap'n Refsmmat,

 

But you can put yourself in the shoes of the oblate sphereoid pilot, do a loop-de-loop and come by the Earth again from a 90 degree different direction, and find it still an oblate spheroid, but squished the OTHER way.

You would immediately know the squishing was due to your speed and direction, land and find the Earth a sphere. Would you not?

 

The idea of relativity did not arise with Albert. We have been putting ourselves in other people's shoes and walking around stuff to understand its nature, since we starting remembering and predicting stuff.

 

The whole idea of "objective reality" is based on our comparision of our current point of view with another point of view, and taking what remains unchanged, as real. Individuals can do this by themselves by moving around in space and seeing what "always seems to be the case". Or simply wait a moment...then compare what you remember to what you are experiencing. Or check with someone or something else an see if something is true for them too. Or imagine yourself in the shoes of another established true entity and imagine if they would also find this thing true. Or make up an entity, give it as many "true" characteristics as you can remember, and pretend it was experiencing reality, imagine what you think it would experience, and then test it out "for real" and see if it indeed is the case.

 

We all have found that we exist in an objectively true world. And we ourselves are objectively true to our neighbors.

 

Regards, TAR

[owl]

TAR:

But you can put yourself in the shoes of the oblate sphereoid pilot, do a loop-de-loop and come by the Earth again from a 90 degree different direction, and find it still an oblate spheroid, but squished the OTHER way.

You would immediately know the squishing was due to your speed and direction, land and find the Earth a sphere. Would you not?

 

Yes, of course, but the Cap 'n says that earth IS squished this way from one perspective and that way from another... not just "appears" but "is",... See the lead quote in my last post.

 

Same principle with the Doppler sound effect. We all know that a race car's engine is not revving to a higher RPM as it approaches and slowing to lower rev after it passes, but it certainly sounds that way from the trackside observer's frame of reference! Are the high rev and low rev equally accurate perceptions/measurements as the one shown holding steady on the car's tachometer, the engine's "actual" RPM indicator? Of course not.

Edited July 25, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

Do flawed analogies have any relevance to the discussion? Of course not.

[owl]

Do flawed analogies have any relevance to the discussion? Of course not.

How flawed? And how is a squished earth not an appearance error, given the precision of what earth science KNOWS, as above, about earth's shape, as a body, objectively speaking?

[swansont]

Are there any theories that state that the speed of sound is a constant in all frames?

 

Why won't you answer the questions about how you tell you are at rest, if there is this preferred frame that gives you the "real" measurements?

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Well good point about sound not being a good analogy for light.

 

But because light is so much faster than sound, we can investigate sound "going" from one place to another.

 

Light on the other hand is so fast, we have no way to get where its going before it does. The only way we can measure it, is by sending it on an outing and back, and divide the time it took by 2. It has left our frame of reference and returned, by the time we have measured it. Perhaps multiple times if the mirror system is set up so.

 

Or I suppose its been done by polarizing light and splitting it and crossing the resulting beams and measuring the interference and such after one beam has taken a longer route.

 

In any case, you always have control over both ends of where the light started and where it ended. You know "which" peaks of which electric wave and which magnetic wave you are measuring.

 

Once you get to outer space, say Alpha Centuri, you have no way to "be" at both ends at the same time. You have to use historical info to "build" the distance, and the time it would take light to travel it, out of the results of previous experiments.

 

Once so carefully built, the objective distance, becomes a true thing, that will only vary with the motion of the repective stars. One can predict, from previous info, exactly where, in reference to us, Alpha Centuri will be in 5 years, as both stars continue on their course around the center of the MilkyWay, and know from this distance how long it would take for a projectile, traveling at .866 the speed of light to reach the star, "bounce" off of it, and return to the projected position of the Sun. If the resulting calculation yields 10.4 years, then that is how long the trip will take.

 

What has already been established as what must be the case, will not dissolve. The preferred frame of reference is the collective findings of all the measurements, and all the discoveries, and all the imaginary models of objective reality that we have been fitting together for 10s of thousands of years. That includes the effect that gravity and speed have on our perceptions of objective reality.

 

We still have the ability to construct a working model of objective reality from this preferred frame. That putting ourselves into another frame is froght with apparent difficulties is not surprising, since we have not had 10s of thousands of years to figure everything out, from there.

 

Regards, TAR2

[swansont]

The preferred frame of reference is the collective findings of all the measurements, and all the discoveries, and all the imaginary models of objective reality that we have been fitting together for 10s of thousands of years. That includes the effect that gravity and speed have on our perceptions of objective reality.

 

We still have the ability to construct a working model of objective reality from this preferred frame. That putting ourselves into another frame is froght with apparent difficulties is not surprising, since we have not had 10s of thousands of years to figure everything out, from there.

 

That's not what physicists mean by a preferred reference frame. That's a convenient reference frame, much as using a frame where the momentum is zero or one object is at rest is a convenient reference frame — it makes the calculations easier. The physics would still work if you used a different reference frame, though, it's just that the math gets more complicated. A preferred reference frame is where the physics works, and it does not work if you aren't in the preferred frame.

 

For example, you can tell if you are rotating by doing a physics experiment and seeing that F=ma does not appear to hold, which is why we have pseudoforces such as the centrifugal or Coriolis force. There is no corresponding effect for telling if you are absolutely at rest or absolutely moving. Motion is always in reference to another frame. Since you cannot tell who is at rest or who is moving, there is no physics experiment you can do to declare that one measurement is "correct".

 

When physicists do an experiment with certain high-energy nuclei, they have to account for length contraction. That is, the nuclei are no longer spherical in the frame of the target. They physics doesn't work if you ignore relativity. Now, if this is all a happy accident, one is left to wonder how physics works at all. But since it's based on a physical principle rather than being ad-hoc, and it works, we conclude that it's a valid theory. The apparent difficulties are constructs or obstacles in your view. That you have difficulty with the concept does not permit you to project that onto others as a general truth.

 

If you want to replace it, come up with an actual theory that explains and predicts all that relativity explains and predicts. Hand-wavy crap doesn't count, and that includes philosophy. It's not science.

[owl]

Are there any theories that state that the speed of sound is a constant in all frames?

 

Why won't you answer the questions about how you tell you are at rest, if there is this preferred frame that gives you the "real" measurements?

No. It was a comparison of the *principle* (the focus of this thread) that various perceptions do not create various corresponding objective properties of objects perceived. One must be a "frame of reference idealist", in this context, to believe the above, as I have argued.

 

I thought that TAR gave an excellent example of Cap 'n R's spaceship voyagers perceiving earth as flattened in one direction in one pass, and then flattened in another direction in another pass, 90 degrees from the first. In that case, the change of reference frame and the corresponding change of perception of the "true shape of earth," (assuming it has an objective shape independent of perception) is even more obvious.

I thought my analogy demonstrated the same principle without making sound wave compression into a "theory" asserting that the sound is a accurate indicator of engine rpm...

like length contraction "theory" claims for earth's shape, even quite "distorted" from what earth science knows about its shape.

 

To your last point, I do know that everything is in motion at all kinds of various velocities relative to everything else. But we can describe the relative velocities of bodies in our solar system (relative to each other)... and make very good and accurate sense of it all... without obsessing on all possible frames of reference, like: "relative to the center of our galaxy, earth is traveling at (whatever velocity)" added to its velocity in orbit around the sun, etc.

We could even add estimated velocity of cosmic expansion and add that into a very complex "earth's actual velocity" scenario.

 

But we can and do know its average velocity around the sun as a frame of reference without the larger scale frame.

Likewise we know, "up close and personal", precisely the shape of earth from at rest frame without granting equal accuracy to a thought experimental perspective flying by at near light speed. We know, reasonably speaking from a-priori epistemology, that it isn't "actually, objectively" flattened out as seen above, but rather distorted by the extreme viewpoint from which it is so perceived.

 

Science need not become a carnival of the absurd over the relativity dictum, "There are no preferred frames of reference."

At rest with what is measured will always be the "preferred frame," according to the philosophy of realism here presented, not zipping by the measured object at near 'C.'

Edited July 26, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

No. It was a comparison of the *principle* (the focus of this thread) that various perceptions do not create various corresponding objective properties of objects perceived. One must be a "frame of reference idealist", in this context, to believe the above, as I have argued.

 

Principle doesn't matter much when talking about science. Ideology does not drive reality.

 

I thought that TAR gave an excellent example of Cap 'n R's spaceship voyagers perceiving earth as flattened in one direction in one pass, and then flattened in another direction in another pass, 90 degrees from the first. In that case, the change of reference frame and the corresponding change of perception of the "true shape of earth," (assuming it has an objective shape independent of perception) is even more obvious.

 

An example that violates the basic principle of a theory — special relativity is limited to inertial frames, and a loop-the-loop involves an acceleration, so there is a change of frames — it is not an excellent example. Neither of you are in a position to criticize relativity, because it is clear from the examples you give that you do not understand the theory. You are criticizing a straw-man of the theory.

 

I thought my analogy demonstrated the same principle without making sound wave compression into a "theory" asserting that the sound is a accurate indicator of engine rpm...

like length contraction "theory" claims for earth's shape, even quite "distorted" from what earth science knows about its shape.

 

When you present an example that espouses a view that no person or theory has supported — that sound is an accurate RPM indicator despite the Doppler shift — you have built a straw-man argument. When you pose the rhetorical question to make the view sound preposterous, you have made an appeal to ridicule.

 

Logical fallacies are, at fundamental level, intellectually dishonest arguments. None of your observations of relativity based on fallacies have any merit. Perhaps if you were to critique what the theory actually states, there would be something to discuss.

 

To your last point, I do know that everything is in motion at all kinds of various velocities relative to everything else. But we can describe the relative velocities of bodies in our solar system (relative to each other)... and make very good and accurate sense of it all... without obsessing on all possible frames of reference, like: "relative to the center of our galaxy, earth is traveling at (whatever velocity)" added to its velocity in orbit around the sun, etc.

We could even add estimated velocity of cosmic expansion and add that into a very complex "earth's actual velocity" scenario.

 

But we can and do know its average velocity around the sun as a frame of reference without the larger scale frame.

Likewise we know, "up close and personal", precisely the shape of earth from at rest frame without granting equal accuracy to a thought experimental perspective flying by at near light speed. We know, reasonably speaking from a-priori epistemology, that it isn't "actually, objectively" flattened out as seen above, but rather distorted by the extreme viewpoint from which it is so perceived.

 

If this were true, why did we abandon the geocentric description of the solar system in favor of a heliocentric one. If all of our measurements are made from the earth and that's the way to go, why wouldn't we continue with epicycles and all?

 

Science need not become a carnival of the absurd over the relativity dictum, "There are no preferred frames of reference."

At rest with what is measured will always be the "preferred frame," according to the philosophy of realism here presented, not zipping by the measured object at near 'C.'

 

And what puts you in a position to say what science need or need not do? Philosophy's domain does not extend to the falsifiable and testable world of science, where actual experimental evidence is required.

[owl]

Just a quickie, the rest later.

swansont:

 

And what puts you in a position to say what science need or need not do? Philosophy's domain does not extend to the falsifiable and testable world of science, where actual experimental evidence is required.

Seeing earth as flattened one way (say polar diameter 1/8 its earth- science- known length looking pole to pole) and then passing by again on a vector with its equatorial axis (nominal/theroretical) and seeing it flattened that way, say soon after the first pass... would give the theoretical, hypothetical, thought-experimental voyagers a very strong indication that the earth did not respond to their different vectors (frames of reference) by changing shape in response to their observational (FOR) shift.

 

To be radically honest with your question, what puts me " in a position to say what science need or need not do?"...

 

Maybe it has been my freedom from mainstream scientific indoctrination (as a lifelong amateur scientist) ... freedom from studying to get the answers "right" on all the physics tests and then getting the approval of the doctoral committee for a physics PHD, etc.

My intense interest in things like, "What is time, space, and spacetime... the ontological part of philosophy of science keeps on investigating, and finding that there are many out there investigating the same ontological questions. And a physicist may not even care about the above if his/her focus is all on how the equations fit the theories, without a second thought to such obvious philosophical absurdities as an earth with no objective shape independent of various observational frames of reference.

 

Finally, as to what "puts me in" such a position to criticize time dilation, length contraction and spacetime curvature (I will soon cite other spacetime critics, specifically if not banned first)...

But you asked, so... one time only, because it draws extreme heat!...

Heredity. Inherited genes.

I am a free thinker with a measured IQ of 170 (SBIS); 178 (WAIS.)

You can look up the "rarity of occurance" tables if you are interested, but statistically... ... never mind!