Angle as subject in subjective idealism

I would like to return to the argument, for a moment, against relativity's claim that all measurements, as above, are equally correct.

I suggested that this claim puts relativity squarely in subscription to the subjective idealism philosophy. (See Berkeley and Hume, the most well known proponents.) I reiterated the old cliche' about the tree falling in the forest (see above recent post.)

 

The falling tree makes sound waves whether heard and measured or not. I call this real objective nature in this case, independent of perception and measurement. And, to the finer point, measuring the decibel level of that sound from further away, resulting in lower sound level, does not mean that the sound level at the falling tree diminishes. (The recorded decibel level diminishes with the square of the distance.) Again, the accurate measure of sound level is at the falling tree, and, we can adjust for further distances and quieter sound levels with the 'square of the distance' formula and not claim that the quieter measure is "equally accurate."

This is philosophy as relevant to physics.

So, applying the above argument to "forshortening" if there is no objective "reality" independent of various angless, then as discussed at length in the former thread, the distance between earth and sun varies with angles, shortening radically with high angles close to the orbital plane, for instance. Likewise, earth itself, measured as above, is flattened in the direction of view from which it is measured.

My argument then as now is that one astronomical unit stays the same length and earth stays the same shape and size, in the objective world of what is, independent of extreme platforms (angles) from which they are measured.

To claim otherwise, i.e., that "there is no preferred angle... those measurements are equally correct" means that one perspective is just as accurate as another, and therefore, there is no objective universe. It all depends on how we look at (and measure) it.

So, accordingly the "at ninety-degrees" frame with what is being measured will be the accurate angle and yield the actual size and shape and distance between objects (measured from one of the end points.) I know this is perspective "heresy" but I believe it is sound philosophy of science. It is not an attempt to "debunk perspective" but to bring clarity to the confused subjective idealism of perspective regarding angle as "subject."