Is philosophy relevant to science?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

“Checked” with which authority? All these years of very good earth science and astronomy have compiled a very reliable estimate of the precise shape of earth and average distance to the sun.

We have already established that none of these measurements contradict relativity, so you cannot conclude from them that objects have different shapes in different frames.

 

I only “demand” that what we (science) already knows about earth and our solar system not be discarded for an idealist-based theory with no confirming evidence...

I only demand that you familiarize yourself with what science discovers so you are capable of understanding the evidence.

 

And Minkowski's 4-D "spacetime" is quite another subject.

It is an effective model.

[swansont]

“Checked” with which authority? All these years of very good earth science and astronomy have compiled a very reliable estimate of the precise shape of earth and average distance to the sun.

I only “demand” that what we (science) already knows about earth and our solar system not be discarded for an idealist-based theory with no confirming evidence... the flattened earth and contracted Au via extreme frames of observation, etc.

 

You claimed "Different frames of reference do not in fact make earth change shape or move closer to sun." and do not have evidence that it is true. You can't make that claim without the evidence.

 

 

You have also admitted that what one would measure would be a different shape. It is only your arbitrary choice to decide that these measurements are not to be considered real, but at the the same time you can't know that you are not being fooled by the measurements of the earth in our frame. How could you tell?

 

Three dimensions (axes) describe 3-D objects. Is that an "assumption" or a fact? I know of no 4-D objects. We can add the time factor, but that is not another spatial dimension. And Minkowski's 4-D "spacetime" is quite another subject.

 

Who said that time was a spatial dimension?

 

But try and hit a moving target without using time as a dimension.

[owl]

We have already established that none of these measurements contradict relativity, so you cannot conclude from them that objects have different shapes in different frames.

 

That still leaves the philosophical question, does earth have a "true shape" (intrinsic, objective, in and of itself, independent of observation and measurement?) Do you think so or not?

 

I have never said that "objects have different shapes in different frames." I agree that objects may appear to have different shapes in different frames. Ontology examines the difference and philosophy challenges the assumptions that reality IS as IT APPEARS, granting all observations equal status for valid description and measurement.

 

I only demand that you familiarize yourself with what science discovers so you are capable of understanding the evidence.

 

I've been doing that for a long time. Most recently, I studied the article you linked above. I still have serious sincere questions.

Let’s take another look at Schrodinger’s cat from the Kenneth Chang article:

 

It is not that the cat is definitely alive or dead and that one does not know which is true without looking. Instead, all possibilities exist. The cat, says quantum mechanics, oscillates between life and death and only when the box is opened is its fate decided.

 

Philosophically (specifically, logically), as I said, two mutually exclusive conditions (dead and alive) can not both exist at the same time. In fact, the cat is either dead or alive, not both dead and alive.

Why deny the either/or and our lack of knowing which until we look? Sure, both possibilities exist until we discover which is a manifest fact. Why insist that the cat “ oscillates between life and death and only when the box is opened is its fate decided?”

 

If the poison killed the the cat, it died then, regardless of when we opened the box and found out its condition.

 

The researchers measured an energy difference between the two states of the loop, a sign the current was a quantum superposition and not simply flipping directions.

 

Just as the cat is neither alive nor dead but a ghostly mix of the two possibilities, the current flows neither clockwise nor counterclockwise, but is a mix of the two possibilities.

 

I don’t know what “quantum superposition” means, but one must question whether this is simply a conceptual paradox, because “clockwise” and “counterclockwise” are mutually exclusive directions, so what would “a mix of the two” mean in the real world?

 

Is the word possibilities being confused with “actualities” as manifest phenomena?

What does “a ghostly mix of the two possibilities” mean? Maybe we just imagine that our experiment has created a zombie cat, both dead and alive... " a ghostly mix of the two possibilities"... just because we really don’t know which until we check.

 

I think Dr. Pearle nailed it saying,

The deeper question is, is nature really doing this?" Dr. Pearle said. "The second is, how is nature doing this?

 

But those are ontological questions about “the real world”, of no interest to the “science” focus of this forum.

 

It is an effective model.

 

Even if it's only in our minds... since models need no referents in the real world anymore... Spacetime might as well just be Factor X... or a rabbit pelt, right?

 

You claimed "Different frames of reference do not in fact make earth change shape or move closer to sun." and do not have evidence that it is true. You can't make that claim without the evidence.

 

Ok, we have been here over and over, but... We agree that "length contraction" is not a force that changes earth's rigid shape. So earth does not change shape (but trivially.) Science asked, a long time ago, 'What shape is it?" That has been answered conclusively and precisely and repetitively.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence that earth does change shape, so you can not make the claim that "it varies" simply based on an unfounded dictum, "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT."

In the real world, observation does not dictate reality, though idealist believe that it does.

 

You have also admitted that what one would measure would be a different shape. It is only your arbitrary choice to decide that these measurements are not to be considered real, but at the the same time you can't know that you are not being fooled by the measurements of the earth in our frame. How could you tell?

 

I have "admitted" that earth might look severely oblate if one were flying by at near 'c.' If it did, it would be an observational distortion of its true, well know, extremely well documented nearly spherical shape... which you deny based on the above shouted dictum.(My shouting here echoing yours from awhile back.)

 

Who said that time was a spatial dimension?

 

But try and hit a moving target without using time as a dimension.

 

I've agreed hundreds of times that "time elapses" as things move, and often said that I can live with calling it a "dimension" as long as it is not confused with spatial axes... or made into "something" combined with space, "woven together" into that fabric... you know... Minkowski's "spacetime, a glorious non-entity."

 

Yes, miles per hour is a common example of what we call velocity. And air traffic controllers do a good job of keeping aircraft from being in the same space at the same time.

So you can quit misrepresenting my position on "time"... anytime now.

Edited January 24, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

That still leaves the philosophical question, does earth have a "true shape" (intrinsic, objective, in and of itself, independent of observation and measurement?) Do you think so or not?

 

I have never said that "objects have different shapes in different frames." I agree that objects may appear to have different shapes in different frames. Ontology examines the difference and philosophy challenges the assumptions that reality IS as IT APPEARS, granting all observations equal status for valid description and measurement.

 

…

 

Ok, we have been here over and over, but... We agree that "length contraction" is not a force that changes earth's rigid shape. So earth does not change shape (but trivially.) Science asked, a long time ago, 'What shape is it?" That has been answered conclusively and precisely and repetitively.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence that earth does change shape, so you can not make the claim that "it varies" simply based on an unfounded dictum, "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT."

In the real world, observation does not dictate reality, though idealist believe that it does.

 

How do you determine reality, other than by observation? I've asked a number of times, and not gotten an answer.

 

 

I have "admitted" that earth might look severely oblate if one were flying by at near 'c.' If it did, it would be an observational distortion of its true, well know, extremely well documented nearly spherical shape... which you deny based on the above shouted dictum.(My shouting here echoing yours from awhile back.)

 

Distortion is a physical effect. What causes this distortion you speak of?

 

I've agreed hundreds of times that "time elapses" as things move, and often said that I can live with calling it a "dimension" as long as it is not confused with spatial axes... or made into "something" combined with space, "woven together" into that fabric... you know... Minkowski's "spacetime, a glorious non-entity."

 

Yes, miles per hour is a common example of what we call velocity. And air traffic controllers do a good job of keeping aircraft from being in the same space at the same time.

So you can quit misrepresenting my position on "time"... anytime now.

 

When you inconsistently represent it, "misrepresenting" it is a non-sequitur. Time is a dimension. Why can't it be nonlinear? Why can't time and space be "woven together"? (being cognizant that that is a figurative rather than literal description). What prevents it?

[owl]

How do you determine reality, other than by observation? I've asked a number of times, and not gotten an answer.

I've answered many times, not of course "framed" in a way you consider a suitable answer from your "length is not invariant" absolute assumption about "reality," i.e., that it varies with how you look at it.

 

It's like the old, sophomoric argument from idealism:

"How do you know that the world doesn't disappear when you are not observing it?" You agreed that it doesn't cease to exist when you blink, (ridiculous, of course) but how do you know for sure?

Yet we all know that reality does not depend on observation in the above case. (Don't we?) So, go from a blink to the principle that things exist independent of observation, and there is your answer. Earth, the solar system, all naturally occurring space/distance between bodies... all exists independently of observation. So science finds the best way to look at things to ensure the most accurate observation and measurement possible.

For microscopic objects, that will be 'at rest with the objects' under a microscope, not flying through the lab at super high speed. Same for Earth and distance to the sun. At rest with observed object is best, and that is probably obvious to everyone who is not brainwashed by the dictum that length (shape of solid objects and distances between them) varies with how you look at it or that observation, from all frames as equal, determines reality, so reality varies with observation.

This contrasts realism with idealism yet again.

 

Distortion is a physical effect. What causes this distortion you speak of?

 

Well, first, it is a hypothetical effect, since no one has ever flown through the solar system, fast enough to 'see' earth as flattened. Secondly, since science already knows* earth's shape (nearly spherical), any deviation from that would be a distortion, not its true shape.

 

*Study epistemology for how we know what we know. Lots of empirical evidence in this case, plus a-priori knowledge that it does not change shape... but minimally over eons of time.

When you inconsistently represent it, "misrepresenting" it is a non-sequitur. Time is a dimension. Why can't it be nonlinear? Why can't time and space be "woven together"? (being cognizant that that is a figurative rather than literal description). What prevents it?

 

If you will review my “ontology of time” thread you will find that I am very consistent in how I represent it. Define “dimension.”

As a coordinate system, whatever "scaffolding" or conceptual aid works for the math is fine. But when GR claims, as it does in all cases, that mass curves spacetime and that curvature guides objects in curved paths, this claims that spacetime is more than such a model for math, i.e., that "it is curved... etc." That is a claim about the real world... that mass curves something. Ontology challenges the existence of that "something."

 

Please explain how you see time as nonlinear in the following context provided by Wikipedia on non nonlinear systems and on the superposition principle referenced in the former (my emphasis):

 

In mathematics, a nonlinear system is one that does not satisfy the *superposition principle,* or one whose output is not directly proportional to its input; a linear system fulfills these conditions. In other words, a nonlinear system is any problem where the variable(s) to be solved for cannot be written as a linear combination of independent components.

 

wiki on the superpositional principle:

 

In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle [1], also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually.

Edited January 24, 2012 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That still leaves the philosophical question, does earth have a "true shape" (intrinsic, objective, in and of itself, independent of observation and measurement?) Do you think so or not?

Since the "true shape" is independent of observation and measurement, I don't see how its existence is relevant to science. If it is independent of measurement, it cannot have any impact on an experimental result -- just as if it doesn't exist. There's no purpose for a scientist to account for it, because it does not alter his results.

 

 

Philosophically (specifically, logically), as I said, two mutually exclusive conditions (dead and alive) can not both exist at the same time. In fact, the cat is either dead or alive, not both dead and alive.

Why deny the either/or and our lack of knowing which until we look? Sure, both possibilities exist until we discover which is a manifest fact. Why insist that the cat “ oscillates between life and death and only when the box is opened is its fate decided?”

Because experimental results demand it. Quantum superposition is real, and so is Bell's theorem.

 

Even if it's only in our minds... since models need no referents in the real world anymore... Spacetime might as well just be Factor X... or a rabbit pelt, right?

Sure. If experimental results are not a sufficient real-world referent for you, so be it; science will carry on regardless, producing models which accurately model the behavior of the observable universe.

[swansont]

I've answered many times, not of course "framed" in a way you consider a suitable answer from your "length is not invariant" absolute assumption about "reality," i.e., that it varies with how you look at it.

 

It's like the old, sophomoric argument from idealism:

"How do you know that the world doesn't disappear when you are not observing it?" You agreed that it doesn't cease to exist when you blink, (ridiculous, of course) but how do you know for sure?

Yet we all know that reality does not depend on observation in the above case. (Don't we?) So, go from a blink to the principle that things exist independent of observation, and there is your answer. Earth, the solar system, all naturally occurring space/distance between bodies... all exists independently of observation. So science finds the best way to look at things to ensure the most accurate observation and measurement possible.

For microscopic objects, that will be 'at rest with the objects' under a microscope, not flying through the lab at super high speed. Same for Earth and distance to the sun. At rest with observed object is best, and that is probably obvious to everyone who is not brainwashed by the dictum that length (shape of solid objects and distances between them) varies with how you look at it or that observation, from all frames as equal, determines reality, so reality varies with observation.

This contrasts realism with idealism yet again.

 

Non-sequitur. Once again, I don't know what question you are answering, but it isn't the one I asked. Should I rephrase the question?

 

Well, first, it is a hypothetical effect, since no one has ever flown through the solar system, fast enough to 'see' earth as flattened. Secondly, since science already knows* earth's shape (nearly spherical), any deviation from that would be a distortion, not its true shape.

 

*Study epistemology for how we know what we know. Lots of empirical evidence in this case, plus a-priori knowledge that it does not change shape... but minimally over eons of time.

 

But of course you realize that circular logic is a fallacy. You assume your version of realism, but you can't use that assumption to conclude that realism is true. We don't know that the shape of the earth is the same in all frames. That's an assertion based on realism.

 

If you will review my “ontology of time” thread you will find that I am very consistent in how I represent it. Define “dimension.”

As a coordinate system, whatever "scaffolding" or conceptual aid works for the math is fine. But when GR claims, as it does in all cases, that mass curves spacetime and that curvature guides objects in curved paths, this claims that spacetime is more than such a model for math, i.e., that "it is curved... etc." That is a claim about the real world... that mass curves something. Ontology challenges the existence of that "something."

 

You can't simultaneously ask the question and give the answer. You making pronouncements on what GR claims is ludicrous.

 

Please explain how you see time as nonlinear in the following context provided by Wikipedia on non nonlinear systems and on the superposition principle referenced in the former (my emphasis):

 

A Lorentz transform is a nonlinear function of velocity. Who claimed that time obeyed the superposition principle?

[owl]

Since the "true shape" is independent of observation and measurement, I don't see how its existence is relevant to science. If it is independent of measurement, it cannot have any impact on an experimental result -- just as if it doesn't exist. There's no purpose for a scientist to account for it, because it does not alter his results.

 

"True shape" does not mean some inscrutable property which can not be known, as you imply above. It means that we are challenged to find the best way to know about its true shape.

You missed the philosophical essence there.

 

Because experimental results demand it. Quantum superposition is real, and so is Bell's theorem.

 

The nearly spherical earth is real too. To say that other shapes are just as "true"... is false. There are no experimental results supporting a different description of earth. And if there were, then we could wonder how it changes shape if it does actually "vary" (Not Invariant) with frames of reference.

 

Sure. If experimental results are not a sufficient real-world referent for you, so be it; science will carry on regardless, producing models which accurately model the behavior of the observable universe.

 

How do length contraction experimental results relate to “real-world referents” like the actual shape of earth or the actual distances between cosmic bodies? Are there no "real world referents" anymore, like “actual shape of earth” etc?

 

Then it's all about how we observe it from here or there or at different relative velocities, you say. Many of us do not buy it and hope that soon science will do its best to describe the “real world”... and it ain’t full of extremely oblate spheroids, even if that's how it looks from a very high speed pass through.

[DrRocket]

I'll catch up eventually.

 

If you find yourself catching up and actually understanding owl, then may I suggest that you immediately seek competent professional help.

[PeterJ]

Lol. It's okay. I've decided to stay confused.

[swansont]

The nearly spherical earth is real too. To say that other shapes are just as "true"... is false. There are no experimental results supporting a different description of earth. And if there were, then we could wonder how it changes shape if it does actually "vary" (Not Invariant) with frames of reference.

 

But there are several experiments that support length contraction, so it is simply an extrapolation, just as we extrapolate that gravity acts even where it has not been measured. The "shape change" is a fairly straightforward consequence of the speed of light being the same in all frames.

[A Tripolation]

But there are several experiments that support length contraction, so it is simply an extrapolation, just as we extrapolate that gravity acts even where it has not been measured. The "shape change" is a fairly straightforward consequence of the speed of light being the same in all frames.

 

I follow this thread off and on, so I don't know if this has happened or not. Has anyone actually showed owl the math that falls out of SR leading to length contraction? It's pretty simple algebra once you get past the derivations. Maybe that would help him to understand that shape is frame-dependent.

[swansont]

I follow this thread off and on, so I don't know if this has happened or not. Has anyone actually showed owl the math that falls out of SR leading to length contraction? It's pretty simple algebra once you get past the derivations. Maybe that would help him to understand that shape is frame-dependent.

 

Cap'n did so a while ago, in one of the other threads. I forget what excuse was used to dismiss it.

[owl]

If you find yourself catching up and actually understanding owl, then may I suggest that you immediately seek competent professional help.

You really know how to hurt a guy's feelings. Yet you will not engage in the substance of arguments here. You are the one who reminded the forum that there are no large scale confirmations of length contraction, and you have not shown how the micro results from accelerator studies transfer to the "flattened earth" claim or the very much contracted earth-sun distance. Do you endorse the latter two claims? Do you think earth has a true shape,or does it depend on how we look at it.

 

And how about that cat?... Both dead and alive, because mutually exclusive states are both somehow present until we open the box and check? No reality besides observation?

 

I follow this thread off and on, so I don't know if this has happened or not. Has anyone actually showed owl the math that falls out of SR leading to length contraction? It's pretty simple algebra once you get past the derivations. Maybe that would help him to understand that shape is frame-dependent.

Are you saying that math makes earth change shape? (A “philosophy of science” question.)

 

But there are several experiments that support length contraction, so it is simply an extrapolation, just as we extrapolate that gravity acts even where it has not been measured. The "shape change" is a fairly straightforward consequence of the speed of light being the same in all frames.

I think we agree that earth is a semi-solid/rigid body and that “length contraction” is not a “force” that squeezes it into different shapes. Please clarify your position. Is it that we can not know its "true shape," there being no such thing as true shape, and all frames of reference yield equally valid descriptions? If observation determines reality, then however we see it is how it is? (“appears” = “is”?)

If so how is this not idealism, substituting “frame of reference” for “subject.”

 

Cap'n did so a while ago, in one of the other threads. I forget what excuse was used to dismiss it.

That neither math or constant ‘c’ can make earth change shape. That leaves the option above, that we can not know its shape, all possible observed shapes being equal.

This requires that one forget about earth science and astronomy... it's overwhelming pile of evidence... and forget that there is no large scale evidence for length contraction or a "bridge" between how subatomic particles *appear* in an accelerator and how earth might *appear* from a near 'c' fly-by... or that "appears" is different than "is."

 

Other than that, sure, if LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT, then it varies, including earths diameter and the Au. It all depends on how you look at it.

My point is that this is an example of "science" unconsciously based on a contemporary form of idealism... which is a very well debunked philosophy.

[swansont]

I think we agree that earth is a semi-solid/rigid body and that “length contraction” is not a “force” that squeezes it into different shapes. Please clarify your position. Is it that we can not know its "true shape," there being no such thing as true shape, and all frames of reference yield equally valid descriptions? If observation determines reality, then however we see it is how it is? (“appears” = “is”?)

 

Since our only avenue for investigation is measurement, we proceed with the idea that what we measure is real, not an illusion.

 

We also proceed with the idea that there are universal behaviors, i.e. laws, that are true regardless of your frame of reference, and the observation that c is the same in all inertial frames of reference. From that, the phrase "true shape" loses meaning.

 

If what we measure isn't "what it is", what is the justification that this only fails when we are moving, and does not fail when at rest with respect to what we are measuring? (ignoring the obvious problem that it is sometimes impossible to be at rest with what we are measuring)

 

If so how is this not idealism, substituting “frame of reference” for “subject.”

 

Why does the "-ism" you place on it matter?

 

In any event, it's not idealism, because there are invariant quantities in relativity.

 

Other than that, sure, if LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT, then it varies, including earths diameter and the Au. It all depends on how you look at it.

My point is that this is an example of "science" unconsciously based on a contemporary form of idealism... which is a very well debunked philosophy.

 

Ah, that explains it then. if you can hang "idealism" on it, then you can say it's debunked. But, as I have said, it's neither realism nor idealism.

 

That neither math or constant ‘c’ can make earth change shape.

Right. I forgot. A-la-carte science from the church of "evidence can't make me change my mind."

[owl]

Since our only avenue for investigation is measurement, we proceed with the idea that what we measure is real, not an illusion.[/Quote]

So if you measure a flattened earth, then earth is flattened.

Forget about how to best measure its true shape, because there is no true shape. "What we measure is real" and there is no preferred frame for exact measurements. What is that philosophy exactly?

 

We also proceed with the idea that there are universal behaviors, i.e. laws, that are true regardless of your frame of reference, and the observation that c is the same in all inertial frames of reference. From that, the phrase "true shape" loses meaning.

 

How about the principle that an extreme force would be required to change earth's shape? You avoided my question yet again on your position on that. You also avoid that science *knows* perfectly well what earth's shape is... and how far it is to the sun. Relativity theory has not changed that.

 

If what we measure isn't "what it is", what is the justification that this only fails when we are moving, and does not fail when at rest with respect to what we are measuring? (ignoring the obvious problem that it is sometimes impossible to be at rest with what we are measuring)

 

The justification is in the principles of experimental design, which I have repeated so many times already. An alien ship assigned to measure and describe our earth and solar system would compensate for whatever *appearance* of extreme oblateness or shortened distance to the sun, using their equivalent of the Lorentz equations, and report the usual shape of planets in general, which is nearly spherical, as earth science already well *knows.*

Or, they would slow down and go into orbit for a good close examination, at rest with earth. But this is so obvious!

 

Why does the "-ism" you place on it matter?

 

In any event, it's not idealism, because there are invariant quantities in relativity.

 

Just a convention of philosophy... realism, idealism, fanaticism, etc. It is the meaning that counts, like the difference between believing that either earth changes shape

('solid' body that it is) or that science is incapable of knowing its shape, which is blatantly ridiculous, philosophically speaking.

When you say that observation determines earth's shape, that is idealism, even if there are other quantities which do not vary.

 

Ah, that explains it then. if you can hang "idealism" on it, then you can say it's debunked. But, as I have said, it's neither realism nor idealism.

 

"As you have said"... being not only a "real" physicist but also an expert in philosophy, which you despise. 'Earth's shape changes depending on how you look at it' is idealism. Get over it.

Right. I forgot. A-la-carte science from the church of "evidence can't make me change my mind."

 

If wise-cracks and personal attacks could win an argument you would have it in the bag, no contest.

 

You ignore earth science and astronomical evidence consistently to claim that earth changes shape and the distance to the sun varies. ("LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT.") But such "evidence can't make (you) change (your) mind."

[swansont]

So if you measure a flattened earth, then earth is flattened.

Forget about how to best measure its true shape, because there is no true shape. "What we measure is real" and there is no preferred frame for exact measurements. What is that philosophy exactly?

 

Why does it need a name? Why does it need to be a philosophy? It's one of the axioms upon which science is based, but being an expert you already know this. So why are you asking me?

 

How about the principle that an extreme force would be required to change earth's shape? You avoided my question yet again on your position on that. You also avoid that science *knows* perfectly well what earth's shape is... and how far it is to the sun. Relativity theory has not changed that.

 

You mean the principle you mentioned just a few hours ago? (emphasis added)

 

I think we agree that earth is a semi-solid/rigid body and that “length contraction” is not a “force” that squeezes it into different shapes.

 

You shifted the goal posts so fast it made my head spin. Protip: If you are going to set up a question with a premise and then completely reverse your position, it's best not to do it in writing, where your words are preserved.

 

The justification is in the principles of experimental design, which I have repeated so many times already. An alien ship assigned to measure and describe our earth and solar system would compensate for whatever *appearance* of extreme oblateness or shortened distance to the sun, using their equivalent of the Lorentz equations, and report the usual shape of planets in general, which is nearly spherical, as earth science already well *knows.*

Or, they would slow down and go into orbit for a good close examination, at rest with earth. But this is so obvious!

 

If it's so "obvious" how come nobody does this? (Hint: it has to do with the Lorentz symmetry of the laws of physics)

 

And "experimental design", once again, implies that this is some sort of experimental error. It's in the frikkin' theory, where there is no measurement error.

 

Just a convention of philosophy... realism, idealism, fanaticism, etc. It is the meaning that counts, like the difference between believing that either earth changes shape

('solid' body that it is) or that science is incapable of knowing its shape, which is blatantly ridiculous, philosophically speaking.

When you say that observation determines earth's shape, that is idealism, even if there are other quantities which do not vary.

 

 

 

"As you have said"... being not only a "real" physicist but also an expert in philosophy, which you despise. 'Earth's shape changes depending on how you look at it' is idealism. Get over it.

 

And? Relativity works, without resorting to saying "it's mystical". So of what use is your philosophy, except as excess baggage?

 

If wise-cracks and personal attacks could win an argument you would have it in the bag, no contest.

 

Attacking the poor quality of your arguments is not a personal attack. Get over it already.

 

You ignore earth science and astronomical evidence consistently to claim that earth changes shape and the distance to the sun varies. ("LENGTH IS NOT INVARIANT.") But such "evidence can't make (you) change (your) mind."

 

Evidence? I love evidence! You have an experiment to cite that measures the earth from another frame of reference? What is it? But remember, assertions are not evidence, so you have none, do you?

[A Tripolation]

This entire thread seems like Swansont trying to teach owl relativity and owl responding "Nuh uh!!!"

[ydoaPs]

So far my replies have focused on light, specifically color, as wavelength. It compresses with object/observer relative movement toward each other. The wavelength as emitted is its intrinsic color.

 

So, is this still an illusory length contraction? This is a huge example, actually. You see, the length contraction here changes the energy of the photon. If there is no length contraction, then the energy of the uninteracting photon is constant and invariant. However, if there IS length contraction, the energy of the uninteracting photon is constant, but not invariant. If there's only one real answer for the energy, is it from the frame of the emitter or from the frame of the measurement?

 

This brings us back my old thought experiment.

 

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?

 

I say that insisting that measurement (observation)* is* reality... is a contemporary form of idealism, with 'frame of reference' substituting for in classical subjective idealism. This does not deny that frame of reference can be an abstract point of view with no actual present.

 

I say you're wrong. Since I actually know philosophy and a fair bit of science, I know that it's the pragmatic application of Empiricism. Hmm, isn't it odd that Empirical Science would be based on empiricism? I'll let your recover from me blowing your mind just now. Are you better yet? Ok, let's continue. Since all of the data we have from which we can understand the universe comes from our senses and extensions of our senses, we are obviously limited to senses and their extensions as our foundation of knowledge. All of our senses and their extensions are based on interactions. This means all we can possibly know about things is how they interact and how what we can deduce and/or infer from said interactions. If you've read any real philosophy you'd know this and you'd know that any "essence" of things beyond how they appear to us via interaction are forever beyond the reach of human reason. All we can possibly know about something is from how it behaves with other things, so for our purposes, that IS what it is. It IS what interacts in certain manners. This is what physics does; physics tells us how things interact. It does so in a language mindbogglingly with more precision than English, Russian, Arabic, or any other natural language could ever hope to have. Physics, and the mathematics in which it is written, provides us with the best ontology possible.

 

 

'Relativity makes it happen' is no an answer. What about going faster or being in a (edit:, oopse, *stronger*) gravitational field makes clocks slow down? That is the ontological question that physics does not care about. But, being an amateur philosopher of science posting in the philosophy section, I do care about it, and it does remain an unexplained mystery.

 

It's not an ontological question that physics doesn't care about; It is an ontological question which has answered long ago whose answer you refuse to accept or even learn.

 

I'm going to try to do this as simply as possible for your sake since you refuse to learn the proper language. As such, I'll only deal with the "going faster" bit instead of that and "being in a (edit:, oopse, *stronger*) gravitational field" since the mathematics behind general relativity would make your tiny little head explode.

 

We need to start with clarification of terms that I've already done in this thread, but you still get wrong. If something is constant, its value does not change within a given frame. If something is invariant, its value does not depend upon the frame in which it is measured. Length and duration are not invariant; That is, their values depend upon the frame. It is not that the Earth shrinks in your frame when a spaceship zooms by. It is that the Earth's length depends on which equally valid inertial frame from which it is measured. Interestingly enough, your frame is NOT an inertial frame, so the spaceship's measurement (assuming it's not accelerating at the time of measurement) has a greater claim to reality than yours! The speed of light is both constant and invariant and this has devastating consequences for your dogmatic grip on poor amateur philosophy.

 

We start with what we call Maxwell equations:

 

[math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math]

 

These are the equations that describe how electric fields and magnetic fields interact. They convey unfathomably more information than "electric fields and magnetic fields are related". This is the basis of our ontology of electricity and magnetism. Since you almost certainly cannot decipher it, I'll give you some toy ideas with which you can follow the rest. Think of [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot[/math] as describing whether or not a vector field is pointing inward or outward, think of [math]\bigtriangledown\times[/math] as describing which in which direction and how tightly a vector field is curled, and think of [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}[/math] as being the rate of change of the vector field. A vector field is a space where there is a vector at every point. A vector is a mathematical object with both a number and a direction.

 

Having no charges to worry about with light, we can set the charge density equal to zero which makes the equations:

 

[math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=0[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math]

 

Now, let's take the curl of the curl equations and see what happens.

 

[math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{B}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math]

 

Since [math]\bigtriangledown\times(\bigtriangledown\times{V})=\bigtriangledown(\bigtriangledown\cdot{V})-\bigtriangledown^2{V}[/math] for any vector field V, we can write:

 

[math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{E}[/math]

[math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{B}[/math]

 

which we rearrange to get:

 

[math]\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{E}=0[/math]

[math]\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{B}=0[/math]

 

which are the electromagnetic wave equations. The speed term is [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}}[/math] where [math]\mu_0[/math] is the permeability of free space and [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is the permattivity of free space. Plug in the numbers and that's how we get c. One should take note that c is both invariant and constant. This combined with the fact that all inertial reference frames are equally valid lead inexorably to length contraction and time dilation.

 

Cap'n did so a while ago, in one of the other threads. I forget what excuse was used to dismiss it.

 

I was going to do so here, but since Cap'n already did and was outright ignored, it's not worth my effort.

 

As distance is the separation between objects, so too is duration a type of separation. Rather than separating objects, however, duration separates states. Duration and distance are so similar, in fact, that we treat them nearly identically mathematically. We do this extremely accurately. What we observe in the real world correlates with the math every time. In fact, relativity is the most well tested theory ever.

 

Tell me, owl, where does it break down? You've gotten invariance of c from me and you've gotten the ramifications of that from Cap'n. Each of which have been tested ad nauseum. Time dilation and length contraction aren't assumptions; their conclusions which prove true under observation. You should probably look up the definition for the word "assumption" because you continue to use it incorrectly.

 

The science insisting that ‘flattened’ spherical bodies (sun, planets, etc.) are really flattened when we see them that way... that “science” has failed. I was not avoiding your challenge. You just didn’t hear my answers... not ‘framed’ right for you.

 

How has that science failed? It's the most accurately tested science of all time. Do you have any evidence, or just assertions?

 

Back to basic philosophy of science.

I repeat:

"When length contraction insists that there is no 'true shape' of cosmic bodies or 'actual distance' between them, it is the job of philosophy to become a reality check."

 

Back to some basic philosophy of science: Physics IS the reality check.

 

 

I follow this thread off and on, so I don't know if this has happened or not. Has anyone actually showed owl the math that falls out of SR leading to length contraction? It's pretty simple algebra once you get past the derivations. Maybe that would help him to understand that shape is frame-dependent.

 

Apparently so.

 

This entire thread seems like Swansont trying to teach owl relativity and owl responding "Nuh uh!!!"

That's about the gist of it. There's also the bit where owl pretends to know any philosophy.

[D H]

So if you measure a flattened earth, then earth is flattened.

Forget about how to best measure its true shape, because there is no true shape. "What we measure is real" and there is no preferred frame for exact measurements. What is that philosophy exactly?

What philosophy is that? Perhaps composition fallacy, perhaps false dichotomy, perhaps begging the question, perhaps all three at once?

 

You are ignoring that a relativistic observer can calculate what a stationary observer would see. You are defining the "true shape" of the Earth to be that shape seen by a stationary (or non-relativistic) observer and then saying that relativity is wrong because a relativistic observer doesn't see that shape. That's a fallacy, not logic.

 

Every argument you have made in this thread is just one fallacy after another.

[owl]

What philosophy is that? Perhaps composition fallacy, perhaps false dichotomy, perhaps begging the question, perhaps all three at once?

 

You are ignoring that a relativistic observer can calculate what a stationary observer would see. You are defining the "true shape" of the Earth to be that shape seen by a stationary (or non-relativistic) observer and then saying that relativity is wrong because a relativistic observer doesn't see that shape. That's a fallacy, not logic.

 

Every argument you have made in this thread is just one fallacy after another.

I am saying that reality is as it is regardless of observers. Science at its best seeks to know reality as it is. There are many ways to observe. At rest is best. All frames are not equal.

But that requires philosophical perspective, a realm to bash here.

 

An after- thought posed as a rhetorical question:

 

How stupid do you need to be to believe that the earth changes shape or that the distance between stars (and planets to stars) depends on the observations of high speed travelers?

Just asking.( Expecting more SR bs.)

[StringJunky]

 

How stupid do you need to be to believe that the earth changes shape or that the distance between stars (and planets to stars) depends on the observations of high speed travelers?

Just asking.( Expecting more SR bs.)

 

After all the time and effort people conversant in this subject have put into answering your questions on this I think the above is a thread-terminating statement. You are a lost cause on this subject. You are taking the piss.

[mooeypoo]

Alright, enough. This has been going in crooked circles all the way down to thread oblivion.

 

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed.