Is philosophy relevant to science?

[tar]

Owl,

 

I think you are mixing metaphors.

 

Or I am.

 

Or they are.

 

The real world is the one that looks different, than the one you remember seeing yesterday.

 

The real world changed.

Our model of it changed accordingly.

 

Both our model of yesterday and our model of today are models of the same "real world".

Same referrent.

 

You know the Earth is like a ball. Ideal sphere and all that.

 

Question is what does a ball look like, if its very very big, and you are very very small compared to it.

Much like what you see when you step outside your house and look around. But it doesn't look at all like a ball.

 

What is a realist's view of the shape of the Earth? Flat?

 

No, we can make a bunch of observations, and figure out what must "really" be the shape. So we find a whole lot of observations fit together well, if the Earth is a sphere. So we have this "ideal" of the shape of the Earth. We go up in a spaceship, and look down, and sure enough it is like a ball. Our theory seems to pan out. But it certainly is not really the shape it appears to be when we step outside our house.

 

What it "really" looks like, is what it would look like, if we put ourselves in a particular godlike position, and looked at it in "our" terms. That is, using the conventions we have agreed upon and defined. And using the human imagination we are outfitted with.

 

Suggesting that your idea of the real world is a "different" one from the one scientists investigate, is somewhat super idealistic. That you imagine it differently though, is obvious. We all do. That is where science comes along, using the scientific method, as the most objective way, to learn about what really is the case.

 

If science helps you to know the Earth is a sphere, why would you suddenly turn your back on its findings, as soon as you "can't see" what the experiments are saying?

 

And from what I have heard, scientists do not propose a different real world, not a smidge different than the one you see when you step out of your house and look at the stars. They just propose a "more" objective view, that can only be obtained, when everybody puts their measurements and ideas together, to describe it. And test the ideas out, to see if they match reality.

 

Diefying the model is what you are doing with the sphere. Diefying reality "above" our ideas of it, seems to me to be what the scientific method does, by definition. Science constantly checks to see if our ideas match reality. Science does not diefy the sphere. It looks for the properties it exhibits. (from all frames of reference).

 

Might people slip up occasionally and mix a few metaphors. Probably. But its more likely that scientists believe in a real world, that is consistent, than in the consistency of the theory of any one genius.

 

If this was not true, we would not progress. We do progress in our knowledge of the real world, and how it behaves. So, on the whole, we do not stop at the model of the world that any one of us holds. We are always looking for a "better" description. But the criteria are, that the description match reality. If it is a more complete description than the last, and STILL matches reality, then we know the referent better.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 28, 2011 by tar

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, there we have it, finally acknowledged!

There is no 'real Earth' independent of observation according to the Cap 'n of this science forum. It all depends on how we look at it. This, for everyone's information, is a form of idealism: It's all subjective, with the caveat that subject = frame of reference here, however abstract.

There is no three-dimensional shape of Earth independent of observation. It's not "all" subjective; one particular attribute is subjective, just like motion is relative, perceptions of colors vary with lighting, and the rotational direction of an object depends on which side it's viewed from. Other attributes, such as rest mass, the spacetime interval between events, and electric charge, are not subjective in the slightest, and measurements in separate reference frames can agree reliably.

 

If this constitutes idealism, it is a limited kind.

 

Now, the original question of this discussion was "Is philosophy relevant to science?" One might make this specific by asking, "Is the nature of relativity's idealism relevant to science?" The answer is "no", since the theory and observations do not care about the philosophical details.

 

If "three dimensional" was an important qualifier, please explain how other "dimensions" (besides time... yada yada) are verified as accurate descriptions of 'the world', not just mental models for math without referents....

Science does not need to make this distinction; mental models for math which produce accurate predictions are as close as we'll get to "accurate descriptions of 'the world'".

 

What criteria do you use to judge an "accurate description"?

[swansont]

Not true. Why clocks slow down in above circumstances remains an unknown. Claiming that shapes and lengths vary with observation is idealism, philosophically speaking. Realism claims that things might appear different 'as seen from' different frames, but that they don't actually change... like Earth getting flatter or closer to the sun... or a solid meter rod shrinking, as it might appear from extreme frames.

 

Claiming that "time slows down" reifys time, while simply acknowledging that clocks tick more slowly (as above) is direct observation without reification of time.

 

So, as I have pointed out, your objection seems to be that we have used words to describe the behavior.

 

How about this:

[math]\Delta{t'} = \frac{\Delta{t}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

Does this reify time?

 

Yes, exactly... " a 'tick' (is) a physical process that has a duration?

But then you say, "With your definition of time, clocks still measure time."

No. They 'tick' while natural physical processes observed happen. When the observed focus on a "duration of a physical process" is over, we can say how many 'ticks' coincided with the process observed. So many ticks for a full rotation of Earth, for instance. But the clocks in orbit will record fewer ticks than those on the ground... and those at different altitudes (gravity fields) will also vary during one Earth rotation. So relativity does an excellent job of adjusting for all those differences to make good sense and achieve precision of location (for GPS units) in all cases. All that does not require that "time dilates."

 

Why isn't the tick of a clock a process that has a duration and is thus a measure of time? Can the rotation of the earth be a tick, or multiple ticks? That's a physical process.

 

Why is it that relativity does such a good job in predicting these effects? if we don't know why it happens, is it just magic?

 

Re Earth: Certainly no air travel calculations for required jet fuel to circumnavigate the globe will be based on measurements of Earth's equatorial diameter from the old near 'c' fly-by.

 

Not unless the jet is traveling near c. Why would you think it would?

[Peron]

Philosophy may influence how you approach a problem, but in the end you have to have a testable model in order for it to be science because it has to be falsifiable. That's what philosophy generally lacks.

 

Yes, but philosophy usually asks questions that are impossible to prove experimentally. When you get into a very high level of abstraction experiments become impractical or impossible. Science itself isn't special when it comes to this, take string theory. The strings are so small that no experiment could ever prove that they exist and even if other predictions of the theory are proven, we would never really know that the string exists.

[swansont]

Yes, but philosophy usually asks questions that are impossible to prove experimentally. When you get into a very high level of abstraction experiments become impractical or impossible. Science itself isn't special when it comes to this, take string theory. The strings are so small that no experiment could ever prove that they exist and even if other predictions of the theory are proven, we would never really know that the string exists.

 

If string theory persists in not being able to be tested, it will be discarded as science.

[owl]

Lots of catch up here... where to start... where to finish?

Maybe in most general terms.

 

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did my best. I'll try again.

 

How would an Owl realist describe the direction of motion of the Earth around its axis?

How would an Owl idealist describe the direction of motion of the Earth around its axis?

How would Owl describe the direction of motion of the Earth around its axis?

 

Yet again, it is not about 'owl realism or owl idealism.' That is the false attempt here to make this thread my personal philosophy. It is not. I did say right up front that contemporary philosophy of science is not about

Spinoza's categories, as Feynman would have it, or about 'the meaning of life,' etc., etc., as Hawking would have it... both 'strawman' examples of philosophy as irrelevant to modern science.

 

Modern scientific realism knows that Earth's direction of rotation does not change with whatever perspective from which it is observed. For openers, do you understand this so far?

Same principle for Earth's orbit around the Sun... established in the early birth of this solar system... not reversing with various 'as seen from' "subjective perspectives"=frames of reference in this contemporary application of idealism to relativity.

 

And since the idealist answer, must be idiodic, and the Owl answer must be real, be sure that the idealist answer is both replete with observer dependent terms, and wrong, and the Owl answer uses no observer dependent terms, ( or actual observations,) and is correct.

 

Your snide sarcasm does not promote communication here. Last prompt on that before I quit with you.

 

It is 'idiotic' to believe that Earth changes its direction of spin with perspective of observation, i.e., yet again, 'seen as' counterclockwise from above the North Pole and clockwise from above the South Pole. If you haven't the capacity to understand this, then i will not continue to try to explain it to you.

 

And remember, I am asking only for a description of the rotation of the Earth about its axis, we can leave SR and GR out of it for these purposes. I am trying to understand what you mean. (and think you are confused about something). Just want you to lay it directly on the table, so we can take a look at your "view".

 

How is the Earth "really" rotating?

 

So, did you understand my fourth or so repeat above or not?

Final repeat: It's direction of rotation does not change with whether it is observed from above the Antarctic or Arctic Circle... and labeled "clockwise" or "counter-clockwise," respectively.

 

Still plugging along one piece at a time... for basic relevance.

Cap 'n R:

So why should we call one measurement "inaccurate" if I can make incredibly precise predictions based off it, just like I can with the "accurate" measurement?

 

It is about "Is there a 'real world', an Earth with a 'true shape' or not? This is a concern of philosophers of science.

 

We should call the "1000 mile" theoretical measurement of Earth's equatorial diameter (your thought experiment) "inaccurate", because it is actually closer to 8000 miles, as verified by an overwhelming body of close up measurements. (But I've said this dozens of times before.)

 

Cap ‘n R, 294:

 

Would this have any consequences for making scientific predictions about the results of experiments and observations? Would there be experimental predictions made inaccurate because Earth was measured from the "wrong" frame?

me:

Re Earth: Certainly no air travel calculations for required jet fuel to circumnavigate the globe will be based on measurements of Earth's equatorial diameter from the old near 'c' fly-by.

You:

Naturally. You don't use measurements from a completely different reference frame to do your calculations.

No, you don't. If you want to know the circumference of Earth in order to fly around it in a jet, a practical application in the real world, you will plan for enough refueling to fly about 25,000 miles. That is the circumference of the 'real world,' like it or not.

me:

To my point...

Do you or do you not think that Earth has an intrinsic/objective shape independent of observational frame of reference?

Cap 'n R:

I do not think the Earth has an intrinsic three-dimensional shape independent of frame of reference, no.

 

Idealism. How it is observed determines it's shape.

Cap 'n R:

Now, the original question of this discussion was "Is philosophy relevant to science?" One might make this specific by asking, "Is the nature of relativity's idealism relevant to science?" The answer is "no", since the theory and observations do not care about the philosophical details.

 

So, as administrator of this science forum you don’t care about the “true” nature/shape/diameter of Earth, the “actual” distances between cosmic bodies, or the “intrinsic” length of measuring devises; because all of that, you believe, is dependent on ‘subjective’ (frame dependent in this context) observation.

This is just to establish that the basis of your belief is a modern version of idealism as applied to relativity.

That was my point all along. Whether or not that is ‘‘idiocy’ is a philosophical judgement.

 

Maybe Earth “IS” very oblate with a diameter of 1000 miles. In whose universe?? Oh, right, “for” the guy flying by at near ‘c.’ Got it.

Edited December 29, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It is about "Is there a 'real world', an Earth with a 'true shape' or not? This is a concern of philosophers of science.

 

We should call the "1000 mile" theoretical measurement of Earth's equatorial diameter (your thought experiment) "inaccurate", because it is actually closer to 8000 miles, as verified by an overwhelming body of close up measurements. (But I've said this dozens of times before.)

Suppose for a moment relativity is correct and there is a reference frame where I can take an equally large body of close-up measurements showing Earth to have a different shape. These measurements can be used to make equally accurate predictions of Earth's behavior, since I can use Lorentz transforms to recover the shape of the Earth as seen by an observer in its rest frame. Why should I call one set of measurements any less "accurate"?

 

If relativity were false, of course, the measurements would conflict and predictions made in one frame would disagree with predictions made in the other.

 

So, as administrator of this science forum you don’t care about the “true” nature/shape/diameter of Earth, the “actual” distances between cosmic bodies, or the “intrinsic” length of measuring devises; because all of that, you believe, is dependent on ‘subjective’ (frame dependent in this context) observation.

This is just to establish that the basis of your belief is a modern version of idealism as applied to relativity.

That was my point all along. Whether or not that is ‘‘idiocy’ is a philosophical judgement.

Okay.

 

I do care about accurate measurements, but I don't mind which reference frame I use when taking them.

[md65536]

So, as administrator of this science forum you don't care about the "true" nature/shape/diameter of Earth, the "actual" distances between cosmic bodies, or the "intrinsic" length of measuring devises; because all of that, you believe, is dependent on 'subjective' (frame dependent in this context) observation.

This is just to establish that the basis of your belief is a modern version of idealism as applied to relativity.

I don't think this is idealism. What is your definition of idealism?

 

owl, I believe that your "radical honesty" means that you are speaking the truth as you know it, but that the feeling of always speaking the truth interferes with your ability to judge when an opinion or a belief might be wrong. The position of feeling right combined with being unapologetic about it may feel righteous but it comes off as arrogant and condescending. You're also missing the feeling of enlightenment that comes with understanding that you might be wrong, and being forced to reevaluate what you know. I take an opposing view to yours, where any investigation of philosophy of science and "how we know what we know" leads me to the conclusion that we don't really know a lot of what I'd assumed we knew, so it's surprising that your philosophical investigations strengthen your confidence in similar knowledge (such as knowing which properties are intrinsic).

 

Yet again, it is not about 'owl realism or owl idealism.' That is the false attempt here to make this thread my personal philosophy. It is not. I did say right up front that contemporary philosophy of science is not about

Spinoza's categories, as Feynman would have it, or about 'the meaning of life,' etc., etc., as Hawking would have it... both 'strawman' examples of philosophy as irrelevant to modern science.

This is true. So the argument should be that only some specific philosophies or perhaps branches of philosophy are irrelevant to science.

 

However, I think the example that you keep using (shape of Earth or ticking of clocks) is also an example of philosophy as irrelevant to science. Your examples involve explaining how things "really are" regardless of whether that corresponds to accepted science which is based on observations of reality. So of course it is irrelevant.

 

It is an interesting question of whether knowledge which cannot be experimentally verified is relevant to science, but you're using examples of "knowledge" that doesn't even correspond to how the universe is observed to behave. Whether something is relevant if it has no bearing on how things behave is one thing, but something that is demonstrably behaviorally incorrect is certainly irrelevant to science. In other words, no you can't prove or disprove a scientific theory using philosophical rationalism (ie. that every possible object of knowledge can be deduced from coherent premises without observation), when what is deduced contradicts empirical reality.

Edited December 29, 2011 by md65536

[owl]

Suppose for a moment relativity is correct and there is a reference frame where I can take an equally large body of close-up measurements showing Earth to have a different shape. These measurements can be used to make equally accurate predictions of Earth's behavior, since I can use Lorentz transforms to recover the shape of the Earth as seen by an observer in its rest frame. Why should I call one set of measurements any less "accurate"?[/Quote]

 

Philosophically, this claims that there is no "true shape of Earth" independent of observation. Just so you "own" the implied philosophy.

 

If relativity were false, of course, the measurements would conflict and predictions made in one frame would disagree with predictions made in the other.

 

So "for the near 'c' fly-by", the experience of seeing a flattened Earth validates that it is flattened. It has no "true shape," and the flattened image is not just a distortion requiring correction to reflect "reality."

(And the tree falling in the forest makes no sound unless it is "heard." Reality depends on observation. Idealism.)

 

Okay.

I do care about accurate measurements, but I don't mind which reference frame I use when taking them.

 

So you insist that an Earth with a 1000 mile diameter is an "accurate measurement." As you have said, (paraphrased) Earth IS flattened, for the fly-by guy. Diagram the sentence. It asserts that Earth is flattened. But it isn't. It is just experienced that way... which is a distorted image.

 

Cap ‘n R:

So why should we call one measurement "inaccurate" if I can make incredibly precise predictions based off it, just like I can with the "accurate" measurement?

 

me:

It is about "Is there a 'real world', an Earth with a 'true shape' or not? This is a concern of philosophers of science.

 

In summary, the essence of the debate here on the philosophy of science pertaining to the length contraction aspect of relativity is very clear in this exchange. I’m willing to leave it there.

me:

...

Do you or do you not think that Earth has an intrinsic/objective shape independent of observational frame of reference?

 

Cap 'n R:

I do not think the Earth has an intrinsic three-dimensional shape independent of frame of reference, no.

(my emphasis added.)

Idealism. How it is observed determines it's shape.

me:

So, as administrator of this science forum you don’t care about the “true” nature/shape/diameter of Earth, the “actual” distances between cosmic bodies, or the “intrinsic” length of measuring devises; because all of that, you believe, is dependent on ‘subjective’ (frame dependent in this context) observation.

 

Enough already.

[md65536]

So "for the near 'c' fly-by", the experience of seeing a flattened Earth validates that it is flattened. It has no "true shape," and the flattened image is not just a distortion requiring correction to reflect "reality."

It is not just the experience of seeing a flattened Earth, but all experiences of all behaviors involving the Earth, such as whether or not you smash into it.

The position of relativity might be used to claim that the Earth is where it is measured to be, shaped as it is measured to be, and behaves as it is measured to be.

Your claim would require that the Earth really is in a shape and position where it is not measured to be, and that objects can pass through this "hidden, true Earth" as if it is not there (because they behave with the Earth as it is measured to be), and in fact there's nothing empirical that says that the "hidden, true Earth" is there except the knowledge of it in your mind. Idealism.

 

Do you really believe that spaceships can pass through an Earth with an intrinsic shape, just because it appears differently shaped?

 

 

 

Idealism. How it is observed determines it's shape.

 

 

This is not idealism, because nowhere is it stated, implied, or logically derived that measurements require a human mind in order to be made.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So you insist that an Earth with a 1000 mile diameter is an "accurate measurement." As you have said, (paraphrased) Earth IS flattened, for the fly-by guy. Diagram the sentence. It asserts that Earth is flattened. But it isn't. It is just experienced that way... which is a distorted image.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[swansont]

Still waiting to hear how

 

[math]\Delta{t'} = \frac{\Delta{t}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

reifies time.

[owl]

Still waiting to hear how

 

[math]\Delta{t'} = \frac{\Delta{t}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

reifies time.

Don't hold your breath. You know I don't speak math. I do, however, speak philosophy of science. Do you?

 

What is the difference between asserting that time dilates and asserting that clocks slow down?

Ans: One reifys time and the other doesn't. Guess which is which.

 

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

"Earth is flattened" differs from "Earth appears flattened" in that the latter attributes an intrinsic shape to a real Earth independent of observation. The former confuses IS with APPEARS. Realism asserts that it may appear as shaped differently from different frames while it doesn't actually change shape.

 

It isn't actually flattened, even though it might look that way.

Earth is nearly spherical, not very oblate. Everyone but length contraction believers, a special focus of relativity theorists, know that in every sense of the phrase, "to know."

Edited December 30, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

Don't hold your breath. You know I don't speak math. I do, however, speak philosophy of science. Do you?

 

If you don't speak math, I submit you can't properly assess the situation.

 

Your philosophy-of-science-speak reduces relativity to magic. In that regard, speaking philosophy of science sounds a lot like speaking BS.

 

What is the difference between asserting that time dilates and asserting that clocks slow down?

Ans: One reifys time and the other doesn't. Guess which is which.

 

Do all metaphors involve reification, or just this one? Why do clocks slow down? If it is not a change in the rate at which time passes, there has to be a physical mechanism, on which affects all clocks regardless of composition. What is it? Cap'n went through the derivation of the above equation a while back; it is a direct consequence of the speed of light being invariant. Where is the flaw?

 

Or does "clocks slow down" involve Hermione Granger and an amulet?

 

"Earth is flattened" differs from "Earth appears flattened" in that the latter attributes an intrinsic shape to a real Earth independent of observation. The former confuses IS with APPEARS. Realism asserts that it may appear as shaped differently from different frames while it doesn't actually change shape.

 

It isn't actually flattened, even though it might look that way.

Earth is nearly spherical, not very oblate. Everyone but length contraction believers, a special focus of relativity theorists, know that in every sense of the phrase, "to know."

 

How do you know that the measurements that show the earth to be a sphere are correct?

[ydoaPs]

I do, however, speak philosophy of science.

No, no you don't. You've consistently shown that here.

[swansont]

I can only imagine the trouble of reification in other topics. I can see the problem in long division. 12 divided by 6 is often represented as "6 goes into 12 twice" or "6 comes out of 12 twice". But numbers aren't physical things that can go into our out of each other. Stop reifying math! When one says "I am in love" do you think that the person is actually inside of something called love? We all know that love isn't a physical thing you can be inside of. If you listen to Neil Young, do you think love is actually a rose? Stop reifying love!

 

This is a huge problem.

 

Of course, it isn't really a problem. It's manufactured. Equations don't suffer from reification, it's the use of language and teaching techniques involving analogies to describe concepts. But if one doesn't speak math, then one is forced to use imprecise language. Which means, if you take the analogies/metaphors literally, give the appearance of reification. You have the option to learn the language, and stop being the equivalent of the Ugly American (The Ugly Philosopher?) or at least stop with the literal interpretation of the imprecise language.

[StringJunky]

If the natural language of science is mathematics, I don't see how one can philosophise about it with any degree of reasonable authority or validity if one can't speak it...certainly, at least, one shouldn't be dogmatic about ones views on this subject in the face of people that do speak the language.

 

Is Philosophy relevant to Science? Yes, I think so, provided it's being spoken about by people that understand the consensually-agreed processes that scientists work with, otherwise, "Philosophy of Science" just amounts to ephemeral and insubstantial navel-gazing.

Edited December 30, 2011 by StringJunky

[owl]

If you don't speak math, I submit you can't properly assess the situation.

 

Your philosophy-of-science-speak reduces relativity to magic. In that regard, speaking philosophy of science sounds a lot like speaking BS.[/Quote]

 

Here is a little philosophy of science for you. The clearer the language of science the better. When speaking of time we should be very clear about what it is. As events happen, any and all observable physical processes, we say that "time elapses," for instance as something moves from A to B. It "takes time."

Between "ticks" of a clock or clicks of a stopwatch is the duration of a specific monitored event. Maybe we agree so far.

 

But we know that when we launch a clock into orbit, it's physical process of "ticking" slows down. This is observable, empirical science.

Now, here comes reification: The assertion that "time dilates" is the reification of time. What is it that we observe "dilating?" Nothing really besides what I just said that we do observe about the clock's operation.

Ontology asks science to be clear about "what dilates" besides the observation that clocks slow down. If we are confused into thinking that time is some kind of medium which expands and contracts or speeds up and slows down, we then imagine various "timescapes" through which we can travel, and "time travel" is promoted from science fiction to real science, even though time has never been observed to speed up or slow down or be a "scape" of any kind as an entity "itself."

 

To your "Your philosophy-of-science-speak reduces relativity to magic.":

Quite the contrary, the above ontology sticks with what we observe... clocks "keeping time" differently. "Time dilation" makes something out of nothing... the "magic" of reification.

 

Do all metaphors involve reification, or just this one? Why do clocks slow down? If it is not a change in the rate at which time passes, there has to be a physical mechanism, on which affects all clocks regardless of composition. What is it? Cap'n went through the derivation of the above equation a while back; it is a direct consequence of the speed of light being invariant. Where is the flaw?

 

No. But a metaphor which is consciously used as such does not claim natural world properties for abstract concepts... like time is something that clocks measure. I beat this point to death already, but it is lost on you. What do clocks detect and measure? Nothing. They just "tick," and we say how many ticks there were as some observed event happens... say as the clock travels from A to B and a surface vehicle travels from C to D, and the two events are precisely synchronized. Yes, GPS works very precisely. But "time" does not slow down in either case. Clocks do.

 

You confuse "the rate at which time passes" with the rate at which clocks tick, and you have so little understanding of the ontology of time that you don't know the difference.

 

No one yet knows the actual force/mechanism which slows clocks down when their velocity increases, yet you challenge me to answer it. What makes the force of gravity work? Same answer. So GR invents a magic, non-existent, abstract, metphorical, metaphysical 'whatever' and claims that mass makes "it" curve. Btw, let's just call it "spacetime" and represent "it" by a sagging rubber sheet distorted by mass. (No reification there!)

 

How do you know that the measurements that show the earth to be a sphere are correct?

 

It's called repeatability. The measurements and results have been repeated uncountable times and are known within precise parameters for both the polar and equatorial diameters.

What do you have to show an alternative, say that an Earth with an 8000 mile polar diameter and a 1000 mile equatorial diameter (as 'seen' from the near 'c' fly-by frame) is correct?

 

I have asked a lot of questions (with very few answers) about all the different frames of reference from which the speed of light can measured. I think the invariance of 'c' (relative to what, etc.) deserves a thread of its own. If there is one already, please give me a link. (I have studied the classic and more contemporary experiments verifying constant 'c', yet i have more questions about experimental design.

 

Consider this: SR claims that traveling near 'c' in a spaceship between here and the closest star will make the distance between here and there shorter, because of length contraction based on the invariance of lightspeed. It seems to work out for mathematicians, but the problem is that the cosmos does not rearrange itself... stars becoming much closer together, etc., just because a ship travels very fast between them.

Here again, astronomy knows the distance to Alpha Centauri. That distance does not contract to accommodate SR's length contraction theory... as in "for space travelers the distance gets shorter." (Yes, their clocks will slow down and they will probably age more slowly. This is not time dilation, making time into something. And if their clocks show less elapsed time than Earth clocks, this does not mean that the distance traveled got shorter. But this is ontology, and i do not expect you to understand. You are a length contraction idealist.

This is a major discrepancy between the interpretation of theory (and its math) and the cosmos as existing in and of itself objectively.

Edited December 30, 2011 by owl

[ydoaPs]

The clearer the language of science the better.

Mathematics is unbelievably more clear and precise than English could ever hope to be, yet you refuse to learn the language and base your criticisms of science on toy models made to try to give the slightest bit of understanding to people like you. The analogies such as rubber sheets are toys, they're not what the theory really says. If you want clarity, learn the math.

 

Ontology asks science to be clear about "what dilates" besides the observation that clocks slow down. If we are confused into thinking that time is some kind of medium which expands and contracts or speeds up and slows down, we then imagine various "timescapes" through which we can travel, and "time travel" is promoted from science fiction to real science, even though time has never been observed to speed up or slow down or be a "scape" of any kind as an entity "itself."

Again, learn the math. What dilates is what clocks measure. What is it that clocks measure? They measure time. Time, if you'd bother to learn the math instead of using toy models as straw men, is (like space) a separation. Where space is a separation between objects, time is a separation between states. In fact, space and time are so similar that we treat them almost identically. This is why we speak of spacetime as a whole unit. Time dilation and length contraction are different aspects of the same effect.

 

Consider this: SR claims that traveling near 'c' in a spaceship between here and the closest star will make the distance between here and there shorter, because of length contraction based on the invariance of lightspeed. It seems to work out for mathematicians, but the problem is that the cosmos does not rearrange itself... stars becoming much closer together, etc., just because a ship travels very fast between them.

Here again, astronomy knows the distance to Alpha Centauri. That distance does not contract to accommodate SR's length contraction theory... as in "for space travelers the distance gets shorter." (Yes, their clocks will slow down and they will probably age more slowly. This is not time dilation, making time into something. And if their clocks show less elapsed time than Earth clocks, this does not mean that the distance traveled got shorter. But this is ontology, and i do not expect you to understand. You are a length contraction idealist.

This is a major discrepancy between the interpretation of theory (and its math) and the cosmos as existing in and of itself objectively.

In my example I posed to you earlier, what is the total kinetic energy?

 

For those who just joined us, the problem I'm talking about is:

Imagine a universe which operates exactly as ours does in every single way. This universe, however, only contains three objects. These objects are spheres of a mass of 1kg. Spheres 1 and 2 are at rest with respect to each other. In reference frame A, spheres 1 and 2 are at rest and are approached by sphere 3 which is traveling at 100 m/s. In reference frame B, sphere 3 is at rest and is approached by spheres 1 and 2 each traveling at 100 m/s. Assume the amount of kinetic energy in a system is given by the equation KE=(1/2)mv² where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass, and v is velocity.

1)What is the total kinetic energy in that hypothetical universe?

2)Which reference frame is the "correct" one?

[swansont]

Here is a little philosophy of science for you. The clearer the language of science the better.

 

Quite true. So when are you going to learn the clear and precise language of mathematics?

 

When speaking of time we should be very clear about what it is. As events happen, any and all observable physical processes, we say that "time elapses," for instance as something moves from A to B. It "takes time."

Between "ticks" of a clock or clicks of a stopwatch is the duration of a specific monitored event. Maybe we agree so far.

 

OK so far. You have defined time as a duration, so it is the duration of a number of ticks of the clock.

 

But we know that when we launch a clock into orbit, it's physical process of "ticking" slows down. This is observable, empirical science.

Now, here comes reification: The assertion that "time dilates" is the reification of time. What is it that we observe "dilating?" Nothing really besides what I just said that we do observe about the clock's operation.

 

The duration changes. Which means that the time interval does as well, since duration = time.

 

Ontology asks science to be clear about "what dilates" besides the observation that clocks slow down. If we are confused into thinking that time is some kind of medium which expands and contracts or speeds up and slows down, we then imagine various "timescapes" through which we can travel, and "time travel" is promoted from science fiction to real science, even though time has never been observed to speed up or slow down or be a "scape" of any kind as an entity "itself."

 

You seem to be the only one in these threads confused in this way by the terminology (everyone else knows not to take the analogies that literally), but if it helps, the duration between identical events increases when in motion. And duration = time. (I didn't use "dilate") But two observers in different frames will disagree on the duration of/between these identical events. The time is not identical.

 

To your "Your philosophy-of-science-speak reduces relativity to magic.":

Quite the contrary, the above ontology sticks with what we observe... clocks "keeping time" differently. "Time dilation" makes something out of nothing... the "magic" of reification.

 

Again, the supposed reification is not universal, but you have said we don't know why clocks slow down. You need an explanation if it is not because of an effect involving time.

 

 

No. But a metaphor which is consciously used as such does not claim natural world properties for abstract concepts... like time is something that clocks measure. I beat this point to death already, but it is lost on you. What do clocks detect and measure? Nothing. They just "tick," and we say how many ticks there were as some observed event happens... say as the clock travels from A to B and a surface vehicle travels from C to D, and the two events are precisely synchronized. Yes, GPS works very precisely. But "time" does not slow down in either case. Clocks do.

 

But measuring a duration is precisely what clocks do. The duration can depend on temperature or humidity, because components can e.g. expand or contract. What happens when a clock is moving that causes it to slow down, if not an effect on time? Why is it an identical effect on clocks of different construction?

 

You confuse "the rate at which time passes" with the rate at which clocks tick, and you have so little understanding of the ontology of time that you don't know the difference.

 

So what's the answer?

 

No one yet knows the actual force/mechanism which slows clocks down when their velocity increases, yet you challenge me to answer it. What makes the force of gravity work? Same answer. So GR invents a magic, non-existent, abstract, metphorical, metaphysical 'whatever' and claims that mass makes "it" curve. Btw, let's just call it "spacetime" and represent "it" by a sagging rubber sheet distorted by mass. (No reification there!)

 

Well, we do know. It's a simple derivation. The analogies you vilify wouldn't be necessary if you spoke math.

 

It's called repeatability. The measurements and results have been repeated uncountable times and are known within precise parameters for both the polar and equatorial diameters.

What do you have to show an alternative, say that an Earth with an 8000 mile polar diameter and a 1000 mile equatorial diameter (as 'seen' from the near 'c' fly-by frame) is correct?

 

Someone with a background in teaching the scientific method surely knows about concepts like bias and systematic error; since you claim that measurements from other frames of reference are an illusion, how do you know that the measurements in our frame aren't an illusion?

 

I have asked a lot of questions (with very few answers) about all the different frames of reference from which the speed of light can measured. I think the invariance of 'c' (relative to what, etc.) deserves a thread of its own. If there is one already, please give me a link. (I have studied the classic and more contemporary experiments verifying constant 'c', yet i have more questions about experimental design.

 

Consider this: SR claims that traveling near 'c' in a spaceship between here and the closest star will make the distance between here and there shorter, because of length contraction based on the invariance of lightspeed. It seems to work out for mathematicians, but the problem is that the cosmos does not rearrange itself... stars becoming much closer together, etc., just because a ship travels very fast between them.

 

Nobody claims that the stars rearrange themselves. You are reifying the concept. You should stop doing that.

 

Here again, astronomy knows the distance to Alpha Centauri. That distance does not contract to accommodate SR's length contraction theory... as in "for space travelers the distance gets shorter." (Yes, their clocks will slow down and they will probably age more slowly. This is not time dilation, making time into something. And if their clocks show less elapsed time than Earth clocks, this does not mean that the distance traveled got shorter. But this is ontology, and i do not expect you to understand. You are a length contraction idealist.

This is a major discrepancy between the interpretation of theory (and its math) and the cosmos as existing in and of itself objectively.

 

Ideology paints you into a corner. Properties cannot be permitted to change, according to the philosophy to which you subscribe, so there can be no effects that we call time dilation and length contraction. There are those who claim the earth is 6000 years old and do great contortions to dismiss observations which contradict their ideology. What you are doing is absolutely no different.

[ydoaPs]

Someone with a background in teaching the scientific method surely knows about concepts like bias and systematic error; since you claim that measurements from other frames of reference are an illusion, how do you know that the measurements in our frame aren't an illusion?

This is especially true considering our reference frame is non-inertial (there are experiments that one can do to show that we are accelerating).

 

Nobody claims that the stars rearrange themselves. You are reifying the concept. You should stop doing that.

I noticed that; I wasn't sure if it was an attempt at ridicule, misunderstanding, straw man, or some combination.

[md65536]

When one says "I am in love" do you think that the person is actually inside of something called love? We all know that love isn't a physical thing you can be inside of. If you listen to Neil Young, do you think love is actually a rose? Stop reifying love!

 

This is a huge problem.

Ah yes, the ontological problem of love. How oft have the the greatest philosophers and lyricists of our time pondered the question in song, "What is love?"

[owl]

Swansont:

But two observers in different frames will disagree on the duration of/between these identical events. The time is not identical.

 

Realism as a philosophical perspective asserts that events in nature do not need to be clocked and compared between two frames of reference ‘clocking’ with different rates of “ticking.”

Different rates of ticking do not measure different rates of "time passing."

Relativity sorts that out fine for practical application, but duration of natural “real world” events does not depend on the variations in observers’ clocks. Sorry you can not comprehend the difference.

 

Swansont:

Again, the supposed reification is not universal, but you have said we don't know why clocks slow down. You need an explanation if it is not because of an effect involving time.

 

We all need an explanation of why/how clocks slow down at higher speeds and in higher gravitational fields. We could all use a good explanation of how gravity works too, without inventing more metaphysical metaphors.

 

Swansont:

What happens when a clock is moving that causes it to slow down, if not an effect on time?

 

Since none of us knows how/why speed and gravity slows down clocks... you assume that something called time slows down and that clocks, being somehow detectors of time, measure that “dilation,” as it is commonly misnamed.

 

Get a grip on what ontology of time is about. Or stick to physics and forget about the meaning of the word “time.” It is, after all, just ”that which clocks measure,” according to physics. And that is good enough for physics, because it doesn’t matter ‘what it is.'

And Einstein thought it was a sufficient definition too; so who are we to argue?

He and Minkowski theorized that mass curves spacetime, and it has been the guiding axiom of GR ever since. (Who gives a rat's ass what 'spacetime' IS?)

 

me:

You confuse "the rate at which time passes" with the rate at which clocks tick, and you have so little understanding of the ontology of time that you don't know the difference.

 

You:

So what's the answer?

 

Since time is not an entity but just an abstract concept (event duration), “it”does not “pass.” Things move (including but not limited to clocks’ dynamics’,) and that ‘takes time.’ There is nothing “passing” (time.) Clocks tick and everything moves around. There is no “time passing” in a sense that “it” can pass faster or more slowly.

It is NOT about how we measure distances or time. The universe has a life/reality of its own which does not depend on the equations of relativity and the frames of reference which we humans can imagine.

 

I am tiring of this debate. There are no philosophers here to understand what I said in this post. Math rules without relationship with the real world. Models in the mind rule. They need no reality referents.

Science is becoming just another mind game (philosophically speaking, of course.0

I am ready for a leave from this nonsense.

 

 

Ideology paints you into a corner. Properties cannot be permitted to change, according to the philosophy to which you subscribe, so there can be no effects that we call time dilation and length contraction. There are those who claim the earth is 6000 years old and do great contortions to dismiss observations which contradict their ideology. What you are doing is absolutely no different.

 

The “corner" is your myopic vision projected onto me (a psychological diagnosis)...

Specifically that the cosmos is in your (physics’) head.

Earth does not change shape according to how you look at it. (Idealism.)

Neither does the distances between stars. Length contraction is based on extreme frames of observational reference as valid descriptions of the world. It has perverted objectivity to assert that reality IS as we see it... from very extreme frames of reference. This is not the science which strives to “know the world” as it is. But Einstein said so, so who are we to question.

[swansont]

Realism as a philosophical perspective asserts that events in nature do not need to be clocked and compared between two frames of reference ‘clocking’ with different rates of “ticking.”

Different rates of ticking do not measure different rates of "time passing."

Relativity sorts that out fine for practical application, but duration of natural “real world” events does not depend on the variations in observers’ clocks. Sorry you can not comprehend the difference.

 

Perhaps I could better comprehend it if it did not contain the glaring inconsistency that time is a duration, and a clock's tick is a calibrated duration, but clocks somehow do not measure time. Next you'll be telling me that a meter stick does not measure length.

 

Since time is not an entity but just an abstract concept (event duration), “it”does not “pass.” Things move (including but not limited to clocks’ dynamics’,) and that ‘takes time.’ There is nothing “passing” (time.) Clocks tick and everything moves around. There is no “time passing” in a sense that “it” can pass faster or more slowly.

 

And yet identical events have different durations if they are in different frames of reference. It takes more time for an event in a moving frame than for an identical event in the rest frame. How do you reconcile this with the assertion that nothing has happened to time?

 

It is NOT about how we measure distances or time. The universe has a life/reality of its own which does not depend on the equations of relativity and the frames of reference which we humans can imagine.

 

I am tiring of this debate. There are no philosophers here to understand what I said in this post. Math rules without relationship with the real world. Models in the mind rule. They need no reality referents.

 

No, I think everyone gets it. You have an ideology and the world must conform to it. But someone who has taught the philosophy of science surely understands that science does not do this. Science does not proclaim something and look for evidence to support it, science looks at all the evidence and builds a model that best fits the evidence. Science discards models when they don't.

 

Your position is a prime example showing that philosophy is not relevant to science.

 

 

The “corner" is your myopic vision projected onto me (a psychological diagnosis)...

Specifically that the cosmos is in your (physics’) head.

Earth does not change shape according to how you look at it. (Idealism.)

Neither does the distances between stars. Length contraction is based on extreme frames of observational reference as valid descriptions of the world. It has perverted objectivity to assert that reality IS as we see it... from very extreme frames of reference. This is not the science which strives to “know the world” as it is. But Einstein said so, so who are we to question.

 

I haver a hard time reconciling statements like these with your claimed expertise in matters connected to science.

[Sorcerer]

Is philosophy relevant to science?

 

Yes science is a philosophy.