0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And I think it has been made quite clear in this forum that the mainstream view is that reality is by definition what can be measured and nothing else.
I don't think that's true of the forum. I think it is probably more accurate to say that realities are what can be measured PLUS some set of immeasurable assumptions.
Quote from: JP on 28/09/2012 14:30:28I don't think that's true of the forum. I think it is probably more accurate to say that realities are what can be measured PLUS some set of immeasurable assumptions.Right, I just remembered the basic assumption of SR is that the physics laws that apply here apply everywhere. Does this assumption fall into the immeasurable? Or I guess the laws we work out here are measurably true as far as we can see.
I can't comment on SR in any detail, but would it be correct to say that the major source of disagreement here is that you, Old Guy, acknowledge a reality outside of the measurable, whereas the mainstream view is to bind reality exclusively to the measurable?...On the other hand, you're essentially arguing for an absolute reality outside of frames of references.
But rather than questioning the validity of the details of the mainstream view, you would be better served, I think, if you questioned instead the validity of the idea that reality is to be defined exclusively by the measurable. If I'm understanding the discussion, then this is the more fundamental question that needs to be answered.
To someone who defines reality as the measurable, then the measured change in length is, by definition, real.
You care less about predictions and want to know some ultimate truth, even if you might not be able to test that truth with measurement.
JP:"Reality," is a philosophical/religious concept."The claim by the father of relativity that "real" is a "meaningless" concept (that its *all about measurement*)... is itself a philosophical concept. Einstein's version of idealism is an acceptable philosophy in SR, but realism is not an acceptable philosophy. Earth's shape will vary with how it is measured from different frames. Period....Just to put philosophy of science in perspective here again. SR's idealism (that there is no reality but what is measured) is an *assumed philosophy.*"Philosophy" simply examines that assumption explicitly.
David Cooper:“What doesn't work is the idea that things physically change their shape to accomodate with how they're being observed,... “ (my bold)Me: That issue remains the essence of this thread's challenge.David:“No - it's a diversion.”Lets get one thing straight here. I started the thread. I have focused throughout on the issue as again stated above.
You are the one creating a continuing “diversion” based on your personal opinions about the varieties of “length contraction” according to different theories as you interpret them. You constantly contradict yourself, as I have specifically pointed out several times, with no response from you.
No moderators here care about your continuing attempts to hijack this thread for your own purposes.
You have no right or reason to tell me that the issue I have raised as the core of this thread is a diversion. It is only a “diversion” from your agenda. Start your own thread to promote your own agenda!
Quote from: old guy on 28/09/2012 18:51:08JP:"Reality," is a philosophical/religious concept."The claim by the father of relativity that "real" is a "meaningless" concept (that its *all about measurement*)... is itself a philosophical concept. Einstein's version of idealism is an acceptable philosophy in SR, but realism is not an acceptable philosophy. Earth's shape will vary with how it is measured from different frames. Period....Just to put philosophy of science in perspective here again. SR's idealism (that there is no reality but what is measured) is an *assumed philosophy.*"Philosophy" simply examines that assumption explicitly.If Einstein came into the thread and started posting the way you are, we'd move his posts to New Theories as well.
Old Guy, you've been asked politely several times to keep you philosophizing to New Theories because your posts have moved from discussion to evangelism, i.e. you keep repeating the same arguments again and again to back up your preferred philosophical interpretation, rather than engaging in discussion of science.
This is your final warning before I move the whole thread to New Theories.
No, no “reality outside the measurable” and no “absolute reality." Rather that the “reality” of lengths and shapes of objects and distances between them is best measured from at rest with them, in the same frame with the object of measurement rather than from frames flying by at relativistic speeds, which will, for instance, (probably, theoretically) distort the naturally formed (by the law of gravity) nearly spherical shape of Earth into a more flattened image with a contracted diameter, not its true shape.
That leaves science with the challenge in all cases to find the best way to measure things to determine their intrinsic properties, as they were formed by the laws of physics rather than just as seen from extreme frames of reference.
Yes, but only by defining real as synonymous with each *variable* measure (*even of the same object.) That is why I introduced the probe retrieval thought experiment. I must assume you have read it and don’t need a replay. The probe does not, in reality, change from the 10 meters *it is measured* from Earth (as it approaches at .866 c) to 20 meters, *as measured from at rest with it* (after “coming alongside”, matching velocities to at rest with it.)
I get what you're saying I think. The laws of physics describe the formation of planets such that the planets have a roughly spherical shape, and since this shape arose from the laws we all agree to be correct, then the shape of the planet is, in reality, roughly a sphere. And said spherical shape is apparent only from a reference frame at rest with said planet, so the real description of an object should be described at rest with that object.
I get all that and as others have pointed out, they might even agree with such a view, but the basic problem is that this question is really just asking "what is reality?" The mainstream view, at least as JP points out, and barring unavoidable assumptions, is that reality is what can be measured. But you are essentially asserting that there is a preferred reference frame in which reality is given definition; the reference frame at rest with whatever object we would like to study the real description of.
Unfortunately for you Sir, science is not taking that job As has been variously mentioned on these forums, it is not the job of science to define reality; they have passed that responsibility to meta-physics and religion. Which I find unfortunate as well. Please do correct me again if I am overstepping on my presumptions here.