Frame of Reference as Subject in Subjective Idealism

[tar]

Owl,

 

I was in the low 140s IQ wise when I was younger. Probably in the 120s or 130 now, have not been tested.

And I am with you in a lot of what you say. But on this relativity question, I have defected to the enemy.

Other 170s are on the case. And they have not ignored our concerns. They have figured them out.

 

Regards, TAR2

[swansont]

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.

 

If they were competent scientists, they would know that the earth did not "change" shape in the manner you describe. They would understand length contraction, not be befuddled by it, and go on with their duties.

 

 

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!

If intelligence meant never being wrong, then this would mean something.

[owl]

swansont:

If they were competent scientists, they would know that the earth did not "change" shape in the manner you describe. They would understand length contraction, not be befuddled by it, and go on with their duties.

 

Cap 'n R originated the scenario above of high speed voyagers seeing earth as oblate (flattened) as per length contraction in the direction of their vector. He said that the shape of earth does not change but rather that it is flattened "for them." The flattened earth, he claimed, is just as accurate as the spherical earth, because 'there are no preferred frames of reference.'

So, TAR's thought experiment, having them change vectors (frames of reference) seemed an excellent challenge to the assertion that, for them, earthis flattened in one direction... that it didn't become flattened but rather it always is flattened, from that FOR.

So, the switch makes it obvious that the flattened shape first in one direction, then in the opposite is not "earth as it is" for one pass-by and then "earth as it is" for another pass at right angle to the first... unless, objectively, it's shape changed between passes.

 

It can not be both ways: "Earth does not change shape...", and "Earth is flattened between the poles..." (for one FOR), *and* "Earth is flattened through its equatorial diameter" (for another FOR.)

 

Deal with it. (Please.)

 

If intelligence meant never being wrong, then this would mean something.

 

I have never claimed that I am never wrong. Reference my "Another Far Out Cosmology" thread in Speculations.

Here is a representative sample from the last page of that thread... to save you the trouble:

 

post 41: “I don't know. Looks like my model is in trouble.”

“This may kill my model, but I'm not yet totally convinced. I'll need to study in more depth."

 

“No can do. Back to the drawing board, and more study of extrapolations beyond our present limits.

 

“But you have given me much to think about, re-considering this model, and none of us yet understand the mystery of the present acceleration of expansion."

“I keep an open mind to all the possibilities and remain open to falsification of each... like the shell theorem invalidating my previous model with multiple concentric shells.”

 

Ps;

You:

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

Me:

From #73:

...(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.

 

Seems that you agree with the above, saying that "Ideology does not drive reality," but that agreement must certainly be some kind of "distortion." Can you explain how length contraction is not "frame of reference idealism" (i.e., describes the real,objective world) considering the above "two passes" take on earth's two different shapes?

Edited July 27, 2011 by owl

[tar]

Owl,

 

Maybe I am half on your team, half on SwansonT's.

 

I have always had a problem with discussions of the delta ts and delta t's and the u that appears when you think the t and the t' should equal out and they don't. One way to look at it, is that if you thought they should equal out, and they don't, you were wrong in the first place. What if you thought the t and t' were different in the first place. Then there is no u to have to figure.

 

Illustrated by Einstein's train example with the simultaneous lightning bolts hitting the front and back of the moving train, o and o' standing on ground and train, respectively, midpoint between the strikes. I already have both of them having seen both strikes, and the example has o' seeing the forward strike, before the trail end strike?

 

If strike B is going to take time to get to o', then its going to take twice as long to get to strike A, which means from the beginning the strikes were separated by a train length. In which case they were not similtaneous to begin with.

 

It seems to me that the example shifts meanings from the start to the middle. You can not say two events, separated in space are happening similtaneously, and then use this "universal" now to prove that the events are indeed not happening at the same time to experiencial observers.

 

Can you?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

light is going to take half a train to get to the middle of the train, whether it starts in the front or the back, or whether the train is moving forward or backward. How could the guy standing in the middle of the train see the one before the other?

Edited July 28, 2011 by tar

[owl]

This is a repeat of my challenge from post 78 (not addressed), directed to Cap 'n R, who introduced the thought experiment, later extended by TAR, bringing the contradiction into clear focus:

 

It can not be both ways: "Earth does not change shape...", and "Earth is flattened between the poles..." (for one FOR), *and* "Earth is flattened through its equatorial diameter" (for another FOR.)

... edited...

This is a sincere challenge to the 'all frames of reference are equally valid' dictum of relativity (length contraction here specifically). I edited out the "Deal with it. (Please.)" For more civility and less confrontational attitude on my part. But avoidance of the question is not a mature scientific attitude.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It can not be both ways: "Earth does not change shape...", and "Earth is flattened between the poles..." (for one FOR), *and* "Earth is flattened through its equatorial diameter" (for another FOR.)

Why not? When I sit in one reference frame, I will never see Earth change shape. The shape is only different between reference frames.

[owl]

Why not? When I sit in one reference frame, I will never see Earth change shape. The shape is only different between reference frames.

So, according to what you just said, does the world-as-it-is (not changing) have an intrinsic, objective shape or does its shape depend on the frame of reference from which it is viewed?... which would make length contraction a form of 'frame of reference idealism.'

Your above statement does not sort out and address the options in the quote:

 

It can not be both ways: "Earth does not change shape...", and "Earth is flattened between the poles..." (for one FOR), *and* "Earth is flattened through its equatorial diameter" (for another FOR.)

To include the spherical option,

all four of the following statements can not be true.

#1: Earth is nearly spherical.

#2: Earth does not change shape.

#3: Earth is flattened between the poles.

#4: Earth is flattened through the equator.

 

The 'all frames give equally valid descriptions' dictum clearly runs into a brick wall here. You really can't have all of the above be true.

 

I get that no one sees earth morph as as you said. So (a little humor here) it must have changed (violating statement two above) when the ship was turning around (and the observers' backs were turned), because the first observation saw it as in #3 above, and second observation saw it as #4 above.

And, of course, had they landed, as TAR suggested, they would have seen it as earth science sees it (from at rest frame), as #1 above.

?????

An objective vs subjective ("subject"=frame of reference dependent) world is at stake here in terms of philosophy of science.

 

Here is another way to address the contradiction, as I see it.

You have said that earth does not change (in this context.)

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.

 

Then you said," The shape is only different between reference frames."

It can not be different and yet not change.

????

Edited July 29, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To include the spherical option,

all four of the following statements can not be true.

#1: Earth is nearly spherical.

#2: Earth does not change shape.

#3: Earth is flattened between the poles.

#4: Earth is flattened through the equator.

 

The 'all frames give equally valid descriptions' dictum clearly runs into a brick wall here. You really can't have all of the above be true.

I can, if I amend them:

 

1. Earth is nearly spherical in its own reference frame.
   
2. Earth does not change shape within a given reference frame.
   
3. Earth is flattened between the poles in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c.
   
4. Earth is flattened through the equator in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c in a different direction.
   

 

Then you said," The shape is only different between reference frames."

It can not be different and yet not change.

????

I stand on one side of a statue and look at it. Then I stand on the other side. It's different. It never changed.

 

My observations in one reference frame correspond exactly to observations in another frame, like my observations from one side of a statue correspond to those on the other side.

 

Subjective idealism holds only the mind to be fundamental, and hence there's no reason in subjective idealism for my observations to correspond to anyone else's.

[swansont]

Then you said," The shape is only different between reference frames."

It can not be different and yet not change.

????

The term "change" does not make sense in this context. But people have been telling you that for weeks.

 

The relevant concept here is that of a coordinate transform; Cap'n has presented a linear one, though in relativity it is nonlinear.

[owl]

Cap 'n R:

I can, if I amend them:

 

* Earth is nearly spherical in its own reference frame.

* Earth does not change shape within a given reference frame.

* Earth is flattened between the poles in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c.

* Earth is flattened through the equator in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c in a different direction.

 

Do you agree that the above means that there is no objective, as-it-is shape of earth? Every time you amend the description of earth to depend on frame of reference, as above, you subscribe to my amended version of subjective idealism which equates "subjective" with "frame of reference (FOR.)"

 

The objective earth philosophy of science says it's shape is not dependent on who sees it from where and at what speed and vector.

 

The FOR=subjective perception philosophy says that earth is (in fact) shaped in the various ways described above, depending on how it is seen from various angles and speeds.

How is the above not an endorsement of the "FOR=subjective perception" philosophy as contrasted with the objective philosophy that the shape of earth does not depend on how it is seen.

 

And, as I said before in reply to your earth-as-a-statue metaphore, the earth, unlike your statue, has been seen from all perspectives at rest with it, from surface measures to orbiting observation at all possible angles...

So it still seems to me that your statue metaphor is totally irrelevant ("bogus" in the common vernacular.)

If you flew by at near lightspeed, your statue would turn into a nearly two dimensional image, maybe 1/8the the thickness through the body of the actual stone from which it was carved.

And I say "actual" as the close-up measurement I have been advocating as "more accurate" than thought experiments looking at it from "ridiculously high speeds."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you agree that the above means that there is no objective, as-it-is shape of earth?

Not across all reference frames, no.

 

And, as I said before in reply to your earth-as-a-statue metaphore, the earth, unlike your statue, has been seen from all perspectives at rest with it, from surface measures to orbiting observation at all possible angles...

So it still seems to me that your statue metaphor is totally irrelevant ("bogus" in the common vernacular.)

That would be because you are taking it too literally. In the metaphor, viewing the statue from a different angle is like viewing the Earth from a different reference frame.

 

And I say "actual" as the close-up measurement I have been advocating as "more accurate" than thought experiments looking at it from "ridiculously high speeds."

What reason do you have to claim it "more accurate" apart from the notion that it's all we've ever measured it to be from our reference frame?

[tar]

Owl,

 

I think it was answered. Something about the loop-de-loop being an acceleration.

 

But I think I sort of see the point. Space and time are two aspects of the same "thing". Because of the "geometry" of this thing, changing position puts you in a different "place" in this thing. But the same way that exactly 12 spheres fit around a sphere of the same diameter in ping pong ball geometry...spacetime HAS TO fit together.

 

Mass effects its curvature and is affected by it.

 

Moving requires both a change in position, and the time to do it.

 

And the two have to add back and fit the geometry.

 

I have no idea what I mean by that. But I think it adds up to the Earth being an oblate spheroid if you fly by at a relativistic speed.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

And, as I said before in reply to your earth-as-a-statue metaphore, the earth, unlike your statue, has been seen from all perspectives at rest with it, from surface measures to orbiting observation at all possible angles...

So it still seems to me that your statue metaphor is totally irrelevant ("bogus" in the common vernacular.)

If you flew by at near lightspeed, your statue would turn into a nearly two dimensional image, maybe 1/8the the thickness through the body of the actual stone from which it was carved.

And I say "actual" as the close-up measurement I have been advocating as "more accurate" than thought experiments looking at it from "ridiculously high speeds."

 

Viewing a statue from the front makes a two dimensional projection and a two dimensional perception. Looking at the statue from the side gives a different two dimensional projection. The statue appears different. For example, the width of the statue as viewed from the front is two meters and the width of the statue as viewed from the side is one meter. The width is different not because the statue itself has changed between the various perspectives, but because the three dimensional geometric relationship between the statue and the observer is different between perspectives.

 

The one meter width (viewed from the side) and the two meter width (viewed from the front) are equally real, equally correct, and equally accurate. They represent different arbitrary two dimensional cross sections of a statue that has three spatial dimensions.

 

Relativity is the same situation, and I believe the captain makes an excellent metaphor of it. Each frame of reference is a three dimensional cross section of a four dimensional world. Each three dimensional cross section of an object doesn't just appear different, it is different. But the object in four dimensional space-time is the same regardless of various arbitrary three dimensional perspectives.

 

The Lorentz transforms are a rotation in space-time. Just like rotating a statue in 3D gives a different 2D cross section, so too will a rotated object in 4 dimensions have a different 3D cross section. The object in four dimensions doesn’t itself change, it is the four dimensional geometric relationship between the object and observer that is different.

 

With that considered, it would take either a willful omission, a pretty bad misunderstanding, or no knowledge at all of scientific theory to think length contraction is subjective idealism. If someone wanted to limit their understanding to two dimensions then they could characterize the changing width of the statue with the changing position of the observer as subjective idealism too. How can the width of the statue be different unless the observer's perception is changing the object?

[tar]

Iggy,

 

I myself am guilty of misunderstanding, lack of knowledge AND willful ommissions.

 

But be that as it may, there is something about reality that Owl and I have noticed, an "actual" nature to it, that four dimensional spacetime does not quite do justice.

 

Perhaps if we understood exactly what it was saying, but I for one do not. Not that I have not tried, but always there are aspects dropped out, or assumptions made, that I either cannot grasp, or simply do not agree with.

 

There is an understanding about time, that humans have, automatically, that I do not think is incorrect. To abandon this intuition, in favor of a formulae, that does not have the "natural" flow of human understanding attached solidly to it, is in my mind "unreal".

 

There remains to be discovered, the "link" between general and special relativity, that will tie them together, as understandable aspects of each other (or so I have heard.)

 

Mass and gravity "do something" to space and time. If it was not for matter, and the distances and interchange between one piece of matter and another, we would not have anything real to talk about.

 

To remove oneself from the fray, and consider an "objective" reality that exists without YOU as a participant, is somewhat fanciful.

 

Particularly on my mind the last several days is the question, "why is my now, the same now as everything elses, and everybody elses?"

 

We are connected in this fashion to everything. We are made of the same stuff. Subject to the same cycles. Bombarded by the same photons and gravity waves, that everything else is.

 

I am thinking, that the "universal" now, that we are aware of, is no accident. Regardless of the fact that we know Alpha Centuri is 4.5 lightyears from the Sun, it is in our sky NOW. Its photons are flooding our Earth NOW, its gravity is affecting us NOW. (as it was a moment ago) I am thinking that its distance is not so important, as the fact that it is with us NOW.

 

There is a shape that the Earth is, that we have determined from many perspectives. It is this way, because of the way everthing else is. And the way everything else was.

 

To do a thought experiment, that does not take the whole universe into consideration, might be leaving something important out.

 

I will for now, agree with Owl, that the Earth IS a sphere, and not an oblate spheroid. And any traveler, leaving from the Earth, and returning to the Earth, would add this fact to whatever it was she observed while flying by it at .886C. And I am rather sure, that she would at no point be able to leave the universe. Alpha Centuri, will continue to shine on her.

 

Regards, TAR2

[DrRocket]

There remains to be discovered, the "link" between general and special relativity, that will tie them together, as understandable aspects of each other (or so I have heard.)

 

 

There is "nothing remaining to be discoveresd", nor has there ever been.

 

Special relativity is nothing more and nothing less than the localization of general relativity, general relativity on the tangent space to the spacetime manifold. This results in the reduction of general relativity to special relativity in the special case in which spacetime is flat Euclidean space; i.e. in the absence of gravity.

 

There is nothing whatever mysterious about this. It does require understanding of the basic theory of manifolds, so cannot be understood without some facility with the requisite mathematics, but then neither can general relativity be understood without that background.

[StringJunky]

Iggy,

 

 

I am thinking, that the "universal" now, that we are aware of, is no accident. Regardless of the fact that we know Alpha Centuri is 4.5 lightyears from the Sun, it is in our sky NOW. Its photons are flooding our Earth NOW, its gravity is affecting us NOW. (as it was a moment ago) I am thinking that its distance is not so important, as the fact that it is with us NOW.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

We don't know it's in the sky now...only that its photons are still reaching us. You couldn't confirm that it is here now for another 4.37 years from this moment.

[owl]

Cap ‘n R:

I stand on one side of a statue and look at it. Then I stand on the other side. It's different. It never changed.

My observations in one reference frame correspond exactly to observations in another frame, like my observations from one side of a statue correspond to those on the other side.

 

Subjective idealism holds only the mind to be fundamental, and hence there's no reason in subjective idealism for my observations to correspond to anyone else's.

 

The way I am using objective vs subjective in this thread is that objective refers to an object as it is, independent of observation, and subjective refers to how we see an object.

So I have “amended” subjective idealism to apply to relativity with “frame of reference” substituted for “subjective.”

Idealism still applies because the claim is that “how I see it is how it is,” or “how it looks to me from my perspective is how it actually is.” This is a form of idealism. It could be called relativity’s frame of reference idealism.

Whatever we call it, it does not acknowledge an objective world (earth) or universe (realism) independent of perception or frames of observational reference.

 

Cap ‘n R:

What reason do you have to claim it "more accurate" apart from the notion that it's all we've ever measured it to be from our reference frame?

 

I think it is reasonable and true that the earth’s shape has changed very little over the eons, as known through straightforward earth science physics. The spinning has caused the equator to bulge a bit, making that diameter longer than its polar diameter, but both are know to a very precise degree. Flying by at near ‘C’ and seeing earth as 1/8th of either diameter (depending on direction of flight) does not make it so. Idealism says, “What I see is what/how it actually is," but that is not what it objectively IS intrinsically, in and of itself (as per philosophical realism.)

 

I think it would be an honest admission for relativity theory to acknowledge this difference between how we see it (from different frames of reference) and how it is objectively, and that the latter is more accurately known from at rest with with what is measured than from extreme velocity flying by, i.e., with probable visual image distortion.

 

Going back to the meter rod again for the sake of simplicity... surely no one believes that with two identical rods, side by side, moving one away at near ‘C’ until it looks like 1/8th meter long actually means it IS 1/8th meter long for that period of observation... and then, when returned to rest frame, side by side with its “twin”, it becomes one meter long again.

If you think the one gets shorter and then longer again (or earth morphs as above) just because it looks that way from the extreme frames, then I will no longer try to convince you otherwise, as I accept that length contraction is based on the above form of idealism.

 

We can acknowledge relativity for what it does well without throwing common sense clear out the window.

me:

Do you agree that the above means that there is no objective, as-it-is shape of earth?

Cap ‘n:

Not across all reference frames, no.

This sums it all up. It says that there is no objective world independent of reference frames... Clearly idealism as contrasted with realism as the basic philosophy of science behind the length contraction aspect of relativity.

Edited August 2, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

I think it would be an honest admission for relativity theory to acknowledge this difference between how we see it (from different frames of reference) and how it is objectively, and that the latter is more accurately known from at rest with with what is measured than from extreme velocity flying by, i.e., with probable visual image distortion.

Relativity says that there is no philosophical "objective ideal". Note that it is called relativity rather than subjectivity or subjective idealism. It's not an accident, I think. Science isn't philosophy, and the science here says that the philosophical choice is a false dichotomy. It has no bearing on the physical world.

[owl]

Relativity says that there is no philosophical "objective ideal". Note that it is called relativity rather than subjectivity or subjective idealism. It's not an accident, I think. Science isn't philosophy, and the science here says that the philosophical choice is a false dichotomy. It has no bearing on the physical world.

How about philosophical realism as an alternative... "objective reality?"

So earth is either nearly spherical or almost squished flat, or various other shapes. How is that a false dichotomy? It can't be all of the above unless we discard realism (the possibility of an objective world) and just stick with, "It all depends on the way you look at it. Who knows?" And how is that not subjective, with frame of reference=subjective perspective?

Here is where science could benefit from some serious philosophy... or not.

Edited August 2, 2011 by owl

[mississippichem]

How about philosophical realism as an alternative... "objective reality?"

So earth is either nearly spherical or almost squished flat, or various other shapes. How is that a false dichotomy? It can't be all of the above unless we discard realism (the possibility of an objective world) and just stick with, "It all depends on the way you look at it. Who knows?" And how is that not subjective, with frame of reference=subjective perspective?

Here is where science could benefit from some serious philosophy... or not.

 

Or not. The measurements made from various reference frames are predictable and can be calculated before hand. In this way, the answer will always be predictable and is therefore objective. Subjective would mean that things like length contraction and time dilation are dependent on what kind of mood you were in at the moment or dependent on the identity/past experiences of the person who is observing. This is obviously not the case. If you give a physicist a set of quantities describing a reference frame and a set of quantities describing the object being observed, they will give you a reproducible, quantitative, and consistent answer that describes what measurements will be observed... i.e. objective.

[swansont]

How about philosophical realism as an alternative... "objective reality?"

So earth is either nearly spherical or almost squished flat, or various other shapes. How is that a false dichotomy?

 

I didn't call that a false dichotomy.

 

It can't be all of the above unless we discard realism (the possibility of an objective world) and just stick with, "It all depends on the way you look at it. Who knows?" And how is that not subjective, with frame of reference=subjective perspective?

Here is where science could benefit from some serious philosophy... or not.

 

That's your false dichotomy: that the only two possibilities are what you are calling realism, or discarding objectivity. Relativity is objective, but it does not include your realism. It does not leave us with "who knows" because there is an answer for each frame of reference, and we can transform between these frames.

 

Going back to the meter rod again for the sake of simplicity... surely no one believes that with two identical rods, side by side, moving one away at near ‘C’ until it looks like 1/8th meter long actually means it IS 1/8th meter long for that period of observation... and then, when returned to rest frame, side by side with its “twin”, it becomes one meter long again.

If you think the one gets shorter and then longer again (or earth morphs as above) just because it looks that way from the extreme frames, then I will no longer try to convince you otherwise, as I accept that length contraction is based on the above form of idealism.

 

No. Nobody* believes this. It's not an accurate description of relativity. You are mocking a strawman of relativity. For the 20th time or so.

 

*with an understanding of relativity

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We can acknowledge relativity for what it does well without throwing common sense clear out the window.

Do you have any experimental evidence validating the theory of common sense? It sounds largely conjectural to me.

[swansont]

Perhaps a different tack will make this clear:

 

The argument seems to be this: the earth does not change shape, even though a fast-moving observer might see a different form, because we're on the earth, and can see that it's a spheroid. A fair summary? If we look at this as a proof by contradiction — you assume a premise and when we see that there's a conflict in the conclusion, we know the assumed premise has to be wrong.

 

But: there are two premises being assumed in this scenario. One is the application of relativity. But the other assumption is that objective idealism is true. That's the source of the conflict. They cannot both be true, because they predict different results. Relativity predicts that you will get different measurements in different frames, and also tells us that you cannot tell which frame is preferred. If you want to have a preferred frame for objective idealism, you have to give an objective way of telling everyone how they can tell if they are in the frame that corresponds to the objective reality. How do you do that?

[owl]

Do you have any experimental evidence validating the theory of common sense? It sounds largely conjectural to me.

My argument that earth is in fact nearly spherical and not squished nearly flat (as the disputed frame of reference would have it) is based on a lot of earth science and common experience among earthlings since the "flat earth" era before science knew anything about earth's shape. And now we have the beautiful view of a spherical earth from space. Even epistemology (how we know what we know) confirms this knowledge from not only the above mountain of empirical evidence (a-posteriori) but from reason* itself (a-priori.)

*(That earth can not possibly be both spherical and radically flattened in Reality, regardless of extreme claims from extreme frames with clearly distorted images of earth.)

 

So, along come the famous thought experiments extrapolated from sub-atomic physics (in particle accelerators) trying to apply length contraction to the larger world, unsuccessfully so far.

 

One of your fav's is the near 'C' travelers for whom earth IS nearly squished flat... not just "appears" that way. I have appealed to the obvious absurdity of believing that earth is actually squished out of spherical, to no avail. I have said it can not be (objectively speaking) both spherical and squished, so it must "actually, objectively" be one or the other... to no avail.

 

I give up. Believe what you (and length contraction theory in general) want, but it is clear to me that the at-rest frame of reference (with what is measured) will always be the accurate, objective frame anywhere in the universe.

 

If travelers through our solar system want to know the distances between objects at any given moment, they will need their Lorentz transformation equations to translate what they see, zipping by at near 'C' (maybe seeing 1/8th of our AU, for instance) into the actual, objective, intrinsic, as it is, independent of various observational differences... distances. (The latter are of course best known from the end points, at rest with the distances measured.)

Anyway, all of the above must stand as my "theory of common sense." If you (generally speaking) have abandoned common sense, science is the poorer for it.

Enough already.

[mississippichem]

My argument that earth is in fact nearly spherical and not squished nearly flat (as the disputed frame of reference would have it) is based on a lot of earth science and common experience among earthlings since the "flat earth" era before science knew anything about earth's shape.

 

You still haven't established that the at rest frame is the "correct" one. If all of our Earth science was done at speeds near c, you would be saying that the reference frame measuring the nearly spherical Earth was absurd.