Frame of Reference as Subject in Subjective Idealism

[owl]

Science is not based on or subservient to a philosophy. It is based on empirical observation and the models that are based on and supported by that observation. "Science" based on objective realism is wrong, since it is contradicted by empirical data. You have presented no data to support objective realism. You have your observation from the one reference and then shut your eyes and yell "lalalala I can't hear you" rather than actually investigate other frames of reference. IOW you haven't tested the hypothesis. You don't get to use the term"science" since you have done nothing scientific.

 

An apt statement would be "A world view based on objective realism will not grant equal validity to a severely oblate earth (of say a 1000 mile diameter) or an AU of only 12 million miles." There are world views in which the earth is 6000 years old, too, and the same level of scientific denial is present — many of the same arguments are used as you have presented here.

I would like to ask others in this forum whether you believe that an earth with a 1000 mile diameter, as measured from the extreme frame of reference we have worked to death here, is an equally valid scientific description of earth as the well known 8,000 mile or so diameter.

Whoever believes that the former is equally as valid as the latter is an idealist who believes that frame of reference determines reality, just like subjective perception but with an abstract point of view as 'subject.'

Of course, "all hell would break loose" if earth were actually 8,000 miles pole to pole and 1000 miles through points on the equator... or vice-versa, depending on which direction the near 'C' travelers were heading, with the axis or 90 degrees to it.

 

Since there has been no empirical observation of earth from the above extreme frame of reference, I have no idea why swansont keeps appealing to such as a verification of the above extreme example of earth's shape.

If DrRocket is correct, and I believe he is, there has been no verification for length contraction outside a particle accelerator, specific to the above example or the often debated shortened version of the meter rod.

 

I will just briefly summarize my argument against the assertion that the atmosphere is way thinner than the standard 200 or so miles "for incoming muons." No one has yet even addressed my argument which intends to debunk that nonsense. Yes, they live longer and travel further than expected compared to lab muons.

Again, there is NO empirical data for an earth of 1,000 miles diameter or a meter rod of 12 cm, but there is abundant evidence for the nearly spherical earth. Further, there is no physical explanation, let alone evidence for the contracted diameter of earth or shortened meter rod.

 

Finally, has anyone here considered a cosmos independent of measurement, (as per my post above) i.e., with intrinsic properties of its own which do not vary with frames of reference from which they are measured? That is the objective realism cosmos.

 

Then the question is how best to accurately observe objects. I have been over this many times. It is nonsense to believe that flying by earth at near lightspeed is equally as accurate as at rest. And how about that microbe. Shall we observe it under a microscope or get a snapshot of it as it flies through the lab at near 'C?' Equally valid result? No.

 

Also, record keeping is essential to science, and a mountain of records say earth is nearly spherical, while none say it is a very oblate spheroid.

 

The frame-of-reference dependent cosmos with all points of view being equal is based on idealism. It makes the world/cosmos "subservient to" (as in dependent on) how it is observed. And it requires some common sense to decide from which frame of reference to study a given object for best accuracy. Does anyone get this? Certainly not swansont. This is the philosophical issue that this thread continues to address.

Edited August 26, 2011 by owl

[Schrödinger's hat]

Schrodinger’s hat:

In the thought experiment I asked you to consider (which you continue to refuse), there is no “according to the people,” because there are no people. Light from the sun or any star, or any source travels from the source at “lightspeed,” which, of course, is constant.

Your, "according to the people" insists on a frame of reference, while I argue that frame of reference does not determine reality in objective realism but only in idealism. This does not deny that the light source is obviously the reference point from which it travels, 186,000 miles further for every second it travels. (More editing for clarification) Also, obviously, light traveling toward earth gets 186,000 miles closer every second... which I thought goes without saying, but...)

 

Okay, I'm assuming there can still be things, devices and such in your world.

So let's set up a thought experiment.

There's an object moving in this world, say a space-ship, at 0.9 times the speed of light. Let's say it's one light second long.

A light in the back of the ship turns on.

According to what you said, it will take 1 second for the light to reach the front of the ship.

According to some stationary (moving at 0.9 times the speed of light with respect to the ship) instruments (in your model) the ship is still one light second long.

The light at the back turns on.

One second later, the front of the ship has moved 0.9 light seconds.

Now either:

The light moves at 1.9 times the speed you stated according to the stationary equipment, or the light does not reach the front of the ship in 1 second.

[owl]

I’m gone for a long weekend after checking in tomorrow morning, so I want to ask an important question before go, just to simplify the issue presented in this thread, and I will post this before reading anymore replies from this afternoon. (Tired of the level of quibbling here with dogmatic believers in length contraction.)

 

Many physicists in this forum may not think logic is very important to science, as it is a branch of philosophy, and philosophers are not (often) serious scientists, many think. But as mentioned before, I have taught undergraduate “Logic and the Scientific Method" at the university level.

With that in mind, let me ask the forum a sincere question:

Is earth a very nearly spherical body or is it a severely oblate spheroid, say with diameter through the equator 1/8 th the diameter through the poles, or vice-versa, depending on frame of reference?

[swansont]

Philosophy does not dictate reality. Logic based on a false premise is invalid; if you taught logic then you either know this or your students should get their money back.

[md65536]

[...] (Tired of the level of quibbling here with dogmatic believers in length contraction.)

 

 

[...]

Is earth a very nearly spherical body or is it a severely oblate spheroid, say with diameter through the equator 1/8 th the diameter through the poles, or vice-versa, depending on frame of reference?

What is the point of repeatedly objecting to those who accept modern science and relativity's logical necessity of length contraction, and then repeatedly asking if they accept a consequence of length contraction, only to again repeat your objection?

 

If you want to avoid a discussion of reality as measured by observation, why not just stick to pure philosophy and keep it abstract? As soon as you claim that an idea represents reality, you are forced to deal with the problem that it must correspond to observed reality, and if it doesn't and you can't explain why it doesn't, then your claim cannot be accepted.

 

 

I remember being taught that much of the development of logic was done with the goal of proving the existence of god, but they couldn't prove the existence of something real based only on reasoning about abstract concepts. Perhaps it's even been proven that it's impossible to deduce the reality of something based only on abstract logic. Is this true? If so then any progress you make in describing reality will be revolutionary in both science and philosophy. I just don't think that "Imagine a universe where the principle of relativity doesn't hold; seems alright to me; I rest my case" is enough.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Many physicists in this forum may not think logic is very important to science, as it is a branch of philosophy, and philosophers are not (often) serious scientists, many think. But as mentioned before, I have taught undergraduate "Logic and the Scientific Method" at the university level.

I weep for your students and teaching assistants.

[Iggy]

I remember being taught that much of the development of logic was done with the goal of proving the existence of god, but they couldn't prove the existence of something real based only on reasoning about abstract concepts.

Kant disproved the ontological argument in exactly that way.

 

A jump is made from thought to reality. Kant here objects that being or existence is not a mere attribute which may be added on to a subject, thereby increasing its qualitative content. The predicate, being, adds something to the subject which no mere quality can give. It informs us that the idea is not a mere conception, but is also an actually existing reality. Being, as Kant thinks, actually increases the concept itself in such a way as to transform it. You may attach as many attributes as you please to a concept; you do not thereby lift it out of the subjective sphere and render it actual. So you may pile attribute upon attribute on the conception of God, but at the end of the day you are not necessarily one step nearer his actual existence. So that when we say God exists, we do not simply attach a new attribute to our conception; we do far more than this implies. We pass our bare concept from the sphere of inner subjectivity to that of actuality. This is the great vice of the Ontological argument. The idea of ten dollars is different from the fact only in reality. In the same way the conception of God is different from the fact of his existence only in reality. When, accordingly, the Ontological proof declares that the latter is involved in the former, it puts forward nothing more than a mere statement. No proof is forthcoming precisely where proof is most required. We are not in a position to say that the idea of God includes existence, because it is of the very nature of ideas not to include existence.

Wikipedia - Critique of Pure Reason - Refutation of the Ontological Proof of God's Existence

 

Perhaps it's even been proven that it's impossible to deduce the reality of something based only on abstract logic.

With one caveat -- abstract reasoning does prove the reality and the real existence of the reasoner -- because, you know, I think therefore I am.

 

...I have taught undergraduate "Logic and the Scientific Method" at the university level.

With that in mind, let me ask the forum a sincere question:

Is earth a very nearly spherical body or is it a severely oblate spheroid, say with diameter through the equator 1/8 th the diameter through the poles, or vice-versa, depending on frame of reference?

False dichotomy. Earth is spherical (in its rest frame) and its shape depends on frame of reference.

 

It's like asking "is it raining today or is it dry and sunny depending on location?" Yeah, it is "raining today" (here) and it is "dry and sunny depending on location".

 

It's equivocating, just like...

 

Please address my "airtight logic" above.

If earth does not morph, it cannot change from spherical to very oblate. It must be one or the other, i.e., it can not be both. It's diameter can not be "different lengths."

If "change" and "morph" refer to changes over time in a single frame and "different lengths" refers to differences between frames then it's a false dichotomy... but it's an amphiboly so who could say.

 

Even after people point this out, Owl, you keep doing it. I would be embarrassed.

[md65536]

Then we agree, but you are presenting a false dichotomy.

1) The world is three dimensional and relativity is correct -- thus the world is subjective.

2) The world is three dimensional (and objective) and therefore relativity is incorrect

Whenever anyone presents option 3) The world is objective and four dimensional you just respond with 'I think it isn't'.

 

It is obvious that assuming the model on which relativity is based is incorrect will lead you to finding paradoxes if you assume the results of that model are true.

I think this is the most important unanswered issue here. Even if we ignore "what is real" as owl suggests, and concentrate only on the philosophy, there's still the problem of the false dichotomy. Essentially there is invalid logic being used in the assumption that "if length is not fundamental, then nothing is fundamental but the mind". Ie. "if length contraction is a part of reality, then reality can be described by subjective idealism." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism)

 

It is a false dichotomy because it leaves only two options, where either

1) length is not fundamental and therefore nothing physical is fundamental (which doesn't follow logically), or

2) the only other option is that length and some other arbitrary set of physical attributes are fundamental.

 

owl, how does length not being fundamental imply that nothing real is fundamental? Does length being objective (as you argue) imply that everything is objective and nothing is subjective? And if not, how do you determine a dividing line between what physical properties are fundamental and which are subjective?

 

 

 

[tar]

Iggy,

 

In you diagram with the green planet and the blue planet the red line, at least the lead arrow represents only the position of the lead photon, which was emitted when the blue planet was at its starting point. At every point of its motion a new red arrow should go out to the green planet.

 

According to my conception a photon emitted from the blue planet will travel the same speed and distance as there is between the blue and green planet, regardless of whether the blue planet is following it fast, standing still or going the other way.

 

The second photon emitted by the blue planet would do the same. It would have a slightly smaller distance to travel, and would hence make the trip in a slightly smaller amount of time, but would still cover 186,000 miles per second.

 

If a yellow planet at the midpoint, sent a signal to the green planet, when it saw the blue planet start moving toward the green, the signal would reach the green planet at the same moment the red arrow reaches it.

 

If the yellow planet at the midpoint, sent a signal to the green planet, when it saw the blue planet pass by, the green planet would recieve the signal, at the same moment that it recieved the photons put out by the blue planet as it passed the midpoint.

 

The "difference" between the signal from the yellow planet, and the signal from the blue planet, as seen by the green planet would be the "frequency" of the signal. If the same signal was sent by both the yellow planet and the blue planet, as the blue planet passed the yellow, the green planet would see the blue planet's signal "blueshifted", in comparison to the yellow's signal.

 

Perhaps this conception requires an "ether" which Michelson/Morley did not find. But I don't think it does. What it requires only is an objective "medium" built by the magnetic and electric fields of the photon, which are subject to the characteristics of the electric and magnetic fields which the photon finds itself among.

 

Subjective experience of any given signal requires that the signal was generated at a distant point at a past time.

 

Only an objective gathering of the evidence, can however determine this.

 

If one is to imagine an objective universe, it should be one that fits together, and exists in its entirety, irregardless of which parts of it are experienced here and now. In fact, most of it is "unreachable", being that it is happening "now" and is too far away for us to sense in our lifetimes or even in a million years.

 

Does relativity describe the reality that exists "now", that we will never experience? Or does it describe the reality that we experience?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

In you diagram with the green planet and the blue planet the red line, at least the lead arrow represents only the position of the lead photon, which was emitted when the blue planet was at its starting point. At every point of its motion a new red arrow should go out to the green planet...

 

The second photon emitted by the blue planet would do the same.

You lost me straight off.

 

There is only one photon. It is emitted at the start and reaches the green planet at the finish. The length of the red line is the distance between the blue planet and the photon at any given point in time.

 

 

Say that the whole experiment takes 1 year and the distance between planets at the start is 1 light-year (the length of the blue and green line at the start is 1 light-year). Each notch on a line is 0.1 light-years.

 

Blue calculates the speed of the photon at .5 light-years per year or 0.5c. Green calculates it at 1c. Speed is change in distance (i.e. change in the length of a line) divided by change in time.

 

This thought experiment assumes constant time and distance and a universal now. A variable speed of light follows from those assumptions. Relativity assumes a constant speed of light. Relative time, distance, and simultaneity follow from that assumption.

 

In other words, the speed of light is not constant in classical mechanics and it is constant in relativity.

 

edit...

 

Here, also, is the blue planet's frame:

 

 

I don't see how adding more photons would change the speed of the photon depicted. The point is that if everyone agrees on distance and duration (ie there is no time dilation or length contraction) and everyone agrees on which events are simultaneous (ie universal now) then the speed of light is not invariant.

 

Owl has said that the speed of light is constant, that there is a universal now, and that distance does not contract. These things, taken together, are logically nonsensical, so some remedy is required.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Iggy

[Schrödinger's hat]

Owl has said that the speed of light is constant, that there is a universal now, and that distance does not contract. These things, taken together, are logically nonsensical, so some remedy is required.

There may be one other way out, some kind of non linear re-definition of either 'now', distance, or velocity (or how they relate) with respect to position. I struggle to think of how this would work conceptually, and cannot really be bothered to do the maths for the vague possibility that there is some hugely convoluted theory that is consistent with experiment for one or two additional logical steps before it breaks down.

 

Also, you can go the lorentzian relativity route and say that moving objects actually do get smaller because they are a doppler shifted wave in a (completely undetectable and otherwise irrelevant) aether. This means that when you are stopped relative to this undetectable reference frame what you observe is the true now and true size of everything, and all other observers see things incorrectly because they --and all their instruments -- are doppler shifted.

As far as I know, this will work until the point where you try and think about gravity -- or look at Occam's Razor too closely.

[owl]

All this derision of my logic and yet no one has even addressed the fundamentals of objective realism vs idealism.

So, I will back up to my closure in post 201 and say again:

The frame-of-reference dependent cosmos with all points of view being equal is based on idealism. It makes the world/cosmos "subservient to" (as in dependent on) how it is observed.

 

And still no one has answered this direct question (emphasis added):

Is earth a very nearly spherical body or is it a severely oblate spheroid, say with diameter through the equator 1/8 th the diameter through the poles, or vice-versa, depending on frame of reference?

 

Not, “How does earth look from different points of view?” but, assuming earth has an intrinsic shape independent of how it is viewed (as per objective realism), what shape is it?

 

It is nonsense to claim that if it is viewed one way it is one shape, and if viewed another way it is another shape. It is not two different shapes, depending on two different frames of reference. Call me nasty names if it makes you feel superior, but the above is still nonsense.

 

No one replied to the argument that record keeping is essential to science either, and there there are, of course, abundant records verifying earth’s nearly spherical shape and none verifying a very oblate shape.

 

The basis of my thought experiment was the argument from objective realism: that earth/cosmos and the relationships between all objects have an reality independent of how they are observed.

 

Length contraction denies this and asserts that how things are observed determines their properties, which is idealism in denial of objective realism.

 

My logic says that if you grant objective realism then frame of reference does not determine reality. If not then "length contraction" depends on idealism, and reality is determined by how it is observed.

 

The task of science is to investigate that independent reality with as few errors as possible, and my argument is that extreme frames of reference are more subject to error than the at rest frame with whatever is investigated. I have given many examples.

One would think that length contraction advocates would get a clue to the above when comparing all the records of earth’s spherical shape to the hypothetical very oblate spheroid shape. It is nonsense to say that the latter is equally as valid as the former. It requires a dogmatic belief that "there are no preferred frames of reference" when all the evidence points to the accuracy of the at rest frame. There is no evidence for a very oblate earth.

It requires a “head in the sand” attitude to believe that a nearly squished flat earth is a scientifically valid description. Plus it makes scientists look like "flat earth-ers" without a grip on reality.

Edited August 29, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not, “How does earth look from different points of view?” but, assuming earth has an intrinsic shape independent of how it is viewed (as per objective realism), what shape is it?

Four-dimensional.

 

It's the only way this works out to be consistent and experimentally valid, and it doesn't require a morphing Earth.

[owl]

Iggy:

Owl has said that the speed of light is constant, that there is a universal now, and that distance does not contract. These things, taken together, are logically nonsensical, so some remedy is required.

I have said that even with no observer, the speed of light is constant. No convoluted mind games needed. A photon from a light source travels at 186,000 mps (regardless of conventional units of time and distance) away from the source and toward its destination.

 

The big mystery is that, to keep it simple, radio waves, traveling at lightspeed, do not gain speed when the source is moving toward the radio receiver. IOW, I agree that light can not be pushed faster by a source with velocity toward an observer. (It is not like a bullet from a moving gun.) It lacks mass, so there is nothing substantial for the source to push against. this does not mean, as constantly argued by length contraction advocates, that, "therefore the distance must get shorter."

 

I have said that "now" is the present. No boundaries or signal delay restrictions needed. No denial that it takes time for light to travel any/all distances.

I have said that the distance between objects is intrinsic, not dependent on measurement, and it varies only with the movement of objects relative to each other.

The "remedy" is to quit superimposing the dogma that 'everything depends on frame of reference and measurement there-from' on the cosmos.

 

Four-dimensional.

 

It's the only way this works out to be consistent and experimentally valid, and it doesn't require a morphing Earth.

Four dimensional space or 3-D space plus time? If the latter, how does elapsed time have anything to do with shape? If the former, please describe the fourth spatial axis after length, area and volume.

Edited August 29, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Four dimensional space or 3-D space plus time? If the latter, how does elapsed time have anything to do with shape? If the former, please describe the fourth spatial axis after length, area and volume.

Spacetime. Elapsed time has something to do with shape because distance through time and distance through space can intermingle, just like an object can be rotated so that distance to the left becomes distance upwards. Two events which occur at the same location five seconds apart can, in another reference frame, appear to be simultaneous but at different locations -- because they have essentially "rotated" from temporal to spatial separation.

 

This accounts for observations of time dilation and length contraction in many different situations.

 

I'd suggest you try a book like Spacetime Physics, which introduces and demonstrates the concepts of spacetime, a four-dimensional universe, and length contraction and time dilation. I have heard nothing but good things about it. You will find it enlightening.

[swansont]

It is nonsense to claim that if it is viewed one way it is one shape, and if viewed another way it is another shape. It is not two different shapes, depending on two different frames of reference. Call me nasty names if it makes you feel superior, but the above is still nonsense.

 

Helluva logical argument, professor: Truth by fiat. "Don't you dare disagree. I need not present evidence; my ideology/philosophy shall suffice."

[owl]

'Cap'n Refsmmat' timestamp='1314647963' post='624199'

Spacetime. Elapsed time has something to do with shape because distance through time and distance through space can intermingle, just like an object can be rotated so that distance to the left becomes distance upwards. Two events which occur at the same location five seconds apart can, in another reference frame, appear to be simultaneous but at different locations -- because they have essentially "rotated" from temporal to spatial separation.

 

You clearly find this hard to believe, but I have studied "spacetime" for several years and find myself in agreement with its critics!

 

I suggest, yet again, that you study the two volumes edited by Deiks, Ontology of Spacetime, which investigates what it is that the theory refers to when it applies the noun, "spacetime," rather than just taking its existence for granted, as you continue to do. As you know, this is also the focus of my thread on spacetime ontology.

 

Likewise with the ontology of time specifically. 3-D space is obvious. The only thing obvious about time is that "it" elapses as things move. So when you say, "distance through time and distance through space can intermingle," it is not like they are both entities of some kind to be taken for granted and not questioned. Rather, moving through space (distance, as the linear component) requires time, i.e., the duration of the movement in question. This avoids reifying time and space as entities and empirically describes objects and their movements through empty volume without 'weaving them together' into the very debatable entity, "spacetime."

Me:

It is nonsense to claim that if it is viewed one way it is one shape, and if viewed another way it is another shape. It is not two different shapes, depending on two different frames of reference...

Swansont:

 

Helluva logical argument, professor: Truth by fiat. "Don't you dare disagree. I need not present evidence; my ideology/philosophy shall suffice."

 

You didn't reply to any of my supportive evidence for a spherical earth and the lack of evidence for an oblate earth.

As for the logic, I have been over the following argument several times. We agree that earth does not drastically change shape. In other words, it stays the same shape, regardless of how it is viewed. So, what is that shape? Is it spherical or is it oblate? It can not be both.

If you say that it depends on how you look at it, you are an idealist, and I rest my case.

Were you able to follow that logic?

[Iggy]

Iggy:

 

I have said that even with no observer, the speed of light is constant. No convoluted mind games needed.

If the problem looks like a convoluted mind game to you even after it has been explained so exhaustively then I hold no hope of you understanding it.

 

The big mystery is that, to keep it simple, radio waves, traveling at lightspeed, do not gain speed when the source is moving toward the radio receiver. IOW, I agree that light can not be pushed faster by a source with velocity toward an observer. (It is not like a bullet from a moving gun.) It lacks mass, so there is nothing substantial for the source to push against. this does not mean, as constantly argued by length contraction advocates, that, "therefore the distance must get shorter."

I feel bad... I really do.

 

The source doesn't push light faster... you think that is the "big mystery"? A plane doesn't push sound faster either, do you think that is a big mystery? Do you think I would propose length contraction to solve that?

 

What can be said? You don't know what relativity is or what it does. I can't imagine what it benefits you to try and debate it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You clearly find this hard to believe, but I have studied "spacetime" for several years and find myself in agreement with its critics!

Then why do you still ask trivial questions about its mechanics and behavior?

[swansont]

You didn't reply to any of my supportive evidence for a spherical earth and the lack of evidence for an oblate earth.

 

I thought that it had been established that here is a lot of evidence that when measured in the earth's frame, it is pretty much spherical. Nobody has contended otherwise. But assuming that it is not spherical in other frames is argument from ignorance. Surely someone well-versed in logic knows of this logical fallacy.

 

As for the logic, I have been over the following argument several times. We agree that earth does not drastically change shape. In other words, it stays the same shape, regardless of how it is viewed. So, what is that shape? Is it spherical or is it oblate? It can not be both.

If you say that it depends on how you look at it, you are an idealist, and I rest my case.

Were you able to follow that logic?

No, we don't agree that the earth doesn't drastically change shape. A number of people, including myself, have pointed out the error of the statement. "Is it spherical or is it oblate?" is functionally equivalent to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" — it's a loaded question that cannot be answered yes or no. In forming the argument you have presupposed that length is invariant, and it is not. So yes, I follow the logic and see that it is fatally flawed. This is not a question for philosophy, because it is a statement about the physical world around us, and must be answered empirically. And the empirical evidence shows that time and length are not invariant quantities.

[owl]

Me:

You didn't reply to any of my supportive evidence for a spherical earth and the lack of evidence for an oblate earth.

 

Swansont:

I thought that it had been established that here is a lot of evidence that when measured in the earth's frame, it is pretty much spherical. Nobody has contended otherwise. But assuming that it is not spherical in other frames is argument from ignorance. Surely someone well-versed in logic knows of this logical fallacy.

 

You constantly criticize me for lack of supporting evidence. I say that there is a mountain of it for a nearly spherical earth and none for a very oblate earth... a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

I repeat that seeing it as different shapes from different points of view (frames of reference) does not make it different, and that would be an idealist's assertion. Since all agree (I thought) that it doesn't "morph" (change shapes),it is a specific, unchanging shape. Is it nearly spherical, as per at rest frame, or is it extremely oblate... in the real world? Pick one, unless its all about how you look at it (idealism) and it has no objective, intrinsic shape. Which version has actual evidence to support it?

 

No, we don't agree that the earth doesn't drastically change shape. A number of people, including myself, have pointed out the error of the statement. "Is it spherical or is it oblate?" is functionally equivalent to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" — it's a loaded question that cannot be answered yes or no. In forming the argument you have presupposed that length is invariant, and it is not. So yes, I follow the logic and see that it is fatally flawed. This is not a question for philosophy, because it is a statement about the physical world around us, and must be answered empirically. And the empirical evidence shows that time and length are not invariant quantities.

 

"No, we don't agree that the earth doesn't drastically change shape."

Fight it out with Cap 'n R. Does it "morph" (drastically change shape) or doesn't it? (Ans: No, it doesn't.)

 

You continue to miss the whole point of this thread, which compares idealism to realism. Realism realizes that the universe has a reality independent of observational frames of reference. Science observes from as error-free point of view as possible, makes records and so determines things like the shape or earth... which is not in dispute, accept among eccentrics with an un-verified theory about length contraction. Seeing things as shaped differently from different points of view does not mean that they actually are shaped differently, depending on how you see them. How many times must I repeat this before you get it. If you disagree, you are an idealist. If you are an idealist, admit it, and I have made the point of this thread's philosophical argument.

"In forming the argument you have presupposed that length is invariant, and it is not."

In saying that it is not, you have presupposed that reality is dependent on how it is observed, which is the argument for idealism.

Realism does indeed suppose that things are as they are intrinsically, in the real world, independent of how they are observed.

 

Me:

You clearly find this hard to believe, but I have studied "spacetime" for several years and find myself in agreement with its critics!

Cap 'n R:

Then why do you still ask trivial questions about its mechanics and behavior?

 

Trivial? Could that be a judgmental bias from a physicist without a clue about, or interest in the ontology of spacetime? I think so, since you have never replied to my persistent ontological challenges to what spacetime is.

Some scientists think that it is appropriate to investigate what something (spacetime in this case) is as required information relevant to how "it" behaves. You seem to have missed this piece, probably because it is in the despised field of ontology, mere philosophy.

Some (Brown, Pooley, and many others) say that "it" does not exist. ... That it is a concept without a referent in the world of interaction between masses... that "it" is unnecessary to gravitational attraction between masses, and theoretically "parasitic" upon the empirically observable physics of gravity.

Einstein said that space and time would not exist without matter/energy, so where does that leave them (and their combined "fabric", spacetime) as entities, a medium, whatever besides just a concept?

Edited August 30, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

owl, how many times has an Earth scientist flown past Earth at near the speed of light and measured its shape?

[md65536]

You constantly criticize me for lack of supporting evidence. I say that there is a mountain of it for a nearly spherical earth and none for a very oblate earth... a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

Hahaha. I'm going to feel so stupid one day when I read the headline "Lack of evidence for oblate earth disproves relativity".

 

Science observes from as error-free point of view as possible, makes records and so determines things like the shape or earth... which is not in dispute, accept among eccentrics with an un-verified theory about length contraction. Seeing things as shaped differently from different points of view does not mean that they actually are shaped differently, depending on how you see them. How many times must I repeat this before you get it.

Probably about as many times as you must repeat "2+2=5" before we "get it".

 

Repetition doesn't make a wrong statement understood.

 

 

 

owl, where in your false dichotomy would you fit someone who holds the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc., but also believes that length is not such an aspect and is instead observationally dependent?

Edited August 30, 2011 by md65536

[owl]

owl, how many times has an Earth scientist flown past Earth at near the speed of light and measured its shape?

None that I know of. How cryptic. You must have a point. Maybe that the near light speed frame is only hypothetical and has no empirical evidence to support it. No... that would support my argument. Please explain.

[moth]

What is the ontology of distance?

If it's just the space between two points then what is "it" that is expanding to create Hubble expansion? Or is that just another crazy notion like time dilation?

 

It seems to me like your efforts to refute spacetime demand more definition of time than space, which you seem to accept as obvious.