Is philosophy relevant to science?

[swansont]

A simple question. How about a simple answer? Or is it all about math, and I simply don't speak the language?

 

Bingo. Surely you know that certain expressions in foreign languages don't always translate well into English. Math is no different.

 

Simple questions don't always have simple answers.

[mississippichem]

I have "admitted" many times that I not only disagree with the "no preferred frame of reference dictum" but insist that as close as we can get to an at rest frame with the object/distance measured is "preferable."

 

The principles of experimental design are quite reasonable.

"What shape is Earth?" What frame of reference will give us the most accurate results to answer that question?

Yada yada. (Too many repetitons already.)

How thick is Earth's atmosphere? Shall we go with all the observations known to Earth science or look at it from a muon's frame? Natural muons in the atmosphere "live" longer that lab muons in an accelerator, so they say. So they travel further than expected, based on the latter, shorter 'lifespan.' 'So, therefore Earth's atmosphere is a lot thinner (shorter distance through it) than what atmospheric science has known for a long time.

This is how philosophy of science can help us understand such absurd assumptions as "for a muon" (it's a very much thinner atmosphere)... after all, their frame of reference is "equally valid" according to the length contraction theory of SR.

 

So you accept two frame dependent answers regarding the orbit of the earth but will not accept such for length or duration measurements? Why?

 

I'll tell you why. You don't understand Minkowski space thats why. The questions you ask about four dimensions are laughable even to junior level undergraduate physics students. You clearly have 0 understanding of linear algebra or abstract vector spaces. These are basic concepts in the undergraduate mathematics curriculum.

 

Philosophy is not relevant to science if it is defeated by such basic concepts.

 

Go learn about the Minkowski norm, Lorentz transforms and abstract vector spaces in general. Until you understand this, your philosophy is not relevant to science and debating any further is pointless. Don't be threatened by md65336, we already know you have mystical beliefs, like realism and the strawman of SR you subscribe to.

Edited January 7, 2012 by mississippichem

[owl]

So you accept two frame dependent answers regarding the orbit of the earth but will not accept such for length or duration measurements? Why?[/Quote]

 

You missed the point entirely. Looking at Earth’s spin from either pole and observing “counterclockwise” from above one and “clockwise” from above the other obviously does not mean that Earth changes direction of spin. How it looks is frame dependent, but direction of spin for Earth itself does not change. I’ve repeated this several times, yet you still don’t get it.

 

Likewise, “seeing” Earth from a high speed fly-by frame of reference might make it *appear* very oblate, as if the polar diameter were still 8000 miles or so but the equatorial diameter now appears as 1000 miles or so. Same deal. Earth does not change shape with differences in observational frames of reference. (99th or so rep on that too.)

 

The other “length contraction” position is that Earth doesn’t change shape but, since “all frames are equally valid” (no preferred frame), while appearances vary, we can not know the shape of Earth.

I'll tell you why. You don't understand Minkowski space thats why. The questions you ask about four dimensions are laughable even to junior level undergraduate physics students. You clearly have 0 understanding of linear algebra or abstract vector spaces. These are basic concepts in the undergraduate mathematics curriculum.

 

Philosophy is not relevant to science if it is defeated by such basic concepts.

 

Go learn about the Minkowski norm, Lorentz transforms and abstract vector spaces in general. Until you understand this, your philosophy is not relevant to science and debating any further is pointless. Don't be threatened by md65336, we already know you have mystical beliefs, like realism and the strawman of SR you subscribe to.

 

Philosophy of science examines the assumptions inherent in the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry and cosmology, the latter being the basis for what you take for granted as a given above. I have studied that transition in depth.

 

Go learn some “Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.” My favorite, often cited, is Kelley Ross’s paper, here:

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

 

Edit: It is quite a detailed and astute analysis, which will challenge your assumptions about non-Euclidean space.

 

Here is his ending summary statement:

These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding.

 

me:

Seriously, what do you travel through if you travel through time?

A simple question. How about a simple answer? Or is it all about math, and I simply don't speak the language?

 

Bingo. Surely you know that certain expressions in foreign languages don't always translate well into English. Math is no different.

 

Simple questions don't always have simple answers.

If time travel were possible, it would require that time is 'something' (another 'whatever') through which can be traveled. You continue to hide behind the math. Can math get us "back in time" into the past or "forward in time" into the future or not?

 

Then there is the unanswered "true shape of Earth" challenge.

 

You said:

...before one can ask what the true shape of the earth is, one has to ask if the earth has a true shape. You have decided — based solely on ideology, which is not scientific — that the answer is yes.

 

I answer, based on realism, that the shape of Earth does not depend on how we look at it. The claim that it does is idealism, with "frame of reference" replacing "subject" (in subjective idealism), as the abstraction of 'frames' is understood. It behooves science to find the best way to look at it to determine its 'true shape.'

That demands abandoning the dogma, "there is no preferred frame of reference", which length contraction advocates like you simply will not do.

 

The high speed fly-by frame will not be "preferred" for that purpose by any scientist seeking to describe the objective world. Oh, but you don't seem to believe there is an objective world, since it all depends on observational perspective.

Edited January 7, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

If time travel were possible, it would require that time is 'something' (another 'whatever') through which can be traveled. You continue to hide behind the math. Can math get us "back in time" into the past or "forward in time" into the future or not?

 

Going backward in time, mathematically and semantically, is like going in a negative direction. Coordinates of variables.

 

No comment on the length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism? Or your reification of length?

[Iggy]

Iggy,

 

Yes I have tried. Probably not hard enough.

 

I suppose my problem is finding something to hold constant. I try the measured at C thing and it makes sense, and "works out", until I try and comprehend the consequences.

 

I for instance want to flip back and forth between the frames and see the thing that is constant. I have understood the grids and the math, and to a certain extent, the "spacetime" that is referred to. But I have Owl's problem, in wanting to match up the numbers with real stuff. So that I can understand the consequences.

Special relativity is kinematic. It deals with the distance and time between events, and the velocity of objects. If you're matching up numbers with real stuff the numbers would concern time, distance, and velocity.

 

If there is "something" on which the real world is based, I would like to understand it.

The only things -- or somethings -- proposed by special relativity are measuring rods, clocks, and light. Those were the things used in Einstein's 1905 derivation.

 

I do not seek however to prove length contraction and time dilation incorrect, as Owl seems to be insisting. I on the other hand, have the same "realist" intuition, but am completely open to learning what is "meant" by the terms.

That is what is convention, what is analogy and metaphor, and what are the "real" referents we are referring to.

here is a quote by Einstein:

 

Just as in Euclidean geometry the space-concept refers to the position-possibilities of rigid bodies, so in the general theory of relativity the space-time-concept refers to the behavior of rigid bodies and clocks.

 

-

Space-Time by Albert Einstein

 

Those are the "real referents".

 

For instance, if there is not "something" for the stay at home to remain in, and everything is completely relative. Then to the traveling twin, who never changed reference frames either, it was indeed the Earth that sped away, and came back to her.

in general relativity the gravitational field provides inertia to the twins so that the one that turns around feels acceleration

 

The kind of thing I am suggesting is a matrix of gravitational and magnetic fields that one can actually be moving through, or staying stationary to. Certain of it moves along with you, and certain of it, you are moving through. The matrix itself is not "fixed" in position, except by reference to all of it, from any one here and now.

 

Since the fields generated by Alpha Centuri and the Sun express themselves at C, and have been doing so, for much longer than 4.3 years, the Alpha Centuri-Earth part of the matrix is already here. In fact a whole bunch of local stars are locked together already, in a swirl around the center of the Milky Way.

 

It makes a difference, in my imagination, whose fields you are moving in reference to. And whose fields you are moving along with.

 

Complicated to figure, and maybe this is what the equations of relativity are meant to address. But it seems required that the traveler is moving through "something" that the Earth is moving along with, for there to be a difference in the ages of the twins upon the return of the traveller.

Yeah, the gravitational field in GR can be loosely thought of in that way.

[owl]

Going backward in time, mathematically and semantically, is like going in a negative direction. Coordinates of variables.

 

No comment on the length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism? Or your reification of length?

"Is like?" "Coordinates of variables?" ..."a negative direction"... in what matrix? How is time a matrix?

 

Try to be a little more cryptic to make it even more difficult to understand what you mean. By no means will you answer my questions about time travel or Earth's "actual" shape directly? Duck and dodge. How about a little respect for what science discussions can be without ego battles.

 

edit: Forgot a piece concerning:

No comment on the length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism? Or your reification of length?

 

In what context was the first question? How is length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism?

How do I reify length? I say it is the distance between two points or objects... like in the real world.

What do you say, besides "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT?"...

meaning all lengths of things and distances between things depend on how we look at them?

Edited January 7, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

"Is like?" "Coordinates of variables?" ..."a negative direction"... in what matrix? How is time a matrix?

 

Try to be a little more cryptic to make it even more difficult to understand what you mean. By no means will you answer my questions about time travel or Earth's "actual" shape directly? Duck and dodge. How about a little respect for what science discussions can be without ego battles.

 

I didn't say it was a matrix. The "cryptic" terminology you are having difficulty with is basic algebra.

 

 

edit: Forgot a piece concerning:

 

 

In what context was the first question? How is length contraction necessary to explain electromagnetism?

How do I reify length? I say it is the distance between two points or objects... like in the real world.

What do you say, besides "LENGTH IS NOT INVARIENT?"...

meaning all lengths of things and distances between things depend on how we look at them?

 

The example I gave a few posts back: a moving charge is magnetically attracted to a current-carrying wire. But in the charge's frame, it is at rest, and there can be no magnetic force. But we know a force is there — if it's present in one frame, it must be present in the other (which, btw, is one reason why you can't label it idealism). So your only other option is an electrostatic force. But a regular current-carrying wire is electrically neutral (which I presume, is the realism perspective as well). But if you account for the length contraction of the moving charges, i.e. you properly solve the problem, you get the exact amount of attraction — the charge density is unequal for the two types of charges in the wire.

 

Without the length contraction of relativity, you can't explain electromagnetism. (Though one could, I suppose, be disingenuous and claim we don't understand magnetism, relegating it to mystery and magic)

[tar]

Special relativity is kinematic. It deals with the distance and time between events, and the velocity of objects. If you're matching up numbers with real stuff the numbers would concern time, distance, and velocity.

 

 

The only things -- or somethings -- proposed by special relativity are measuring rods, clocks, and light. Those were the things used in Einstein's 1905 derivation.

 

 

here is a quote by Einstein:

 

Just as in Euclidean geometry the space-concept refers to the position-possibilities of rigid bodies, so in the general theory of relativity the space-time-concept refers to the behavior of rigid bodies and clocks.

 

-

Space-Time by Albert Einstein

 

Those are the "real referents".

 

 

in general relativity the gravitational field provides inertia to the twins so that the one that turns around feels acceleration

 

 

Yeah, the gravitational field in GR can be loosely thought of in that way.

 

Thank you IGGY. I appreciate the time you take to explain things to me. You seem to have a grasp of where I am in reference to where I am attempting to get, understandingwise, in terms of the physics and relativity.

 

As a general observation, in terms of this thread, there are both teachers and students here. I think that philosopjy is very relevant to science, but has already been solidly incorporated into said field of inquiry.

 

And Owl does philosophy a disservice in rejecting the science that has been done in complete accord with solid philosophical thinking.

 

Free thinking is fine for "turning the thing around and looking at it from all sides." But this is what scientists insist on anyway. It is important to note that people have been doing this for a long time. And where we find the same thing, everytime we turn the thing around and look at it, we will probably find a scientist has recorded the fact.

 

Owl,

 

Along this line. About the rotation of the Earth. If you are to say something about it, you have to say it in reference to something. Notice, in terms of relativity that an "observer" is always referenced. The thing that the observer sees is real. It exists with or without the observer. And if two observers look at the same real thing, and see it differently, this establishes the real thing as "other than" the observers or their "ideals".

 

Often you (Owl) have been questioned on why this general establishment of real things is accepted by you, on most counts, but not when it comes to length contraction or time dilation. After Iggy's post, I had a thought. Can you accept that things, real things, are separated from each other? This "distance" between things is C. Always. Really.

 

And time and length are components of the distance between things. And moving things cover a distance, which changes their distance from the things they are moving toward and the things they are moving away from.

 

Can you sort this out, in a "real" way, better than the equations of relativity?

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

Go learn some “Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.” My favorite, often cited, is Kelley Ross’s paper, here:

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

 

Edit: It is quite a detailed and astute analysis, which will challenge your assumptions about non-Euclidean space.

 

Interesting article. I'm not sure I see how it would invalidate Swansonts position, but I liked this:

 

"So again we have an object lesson in the history of science, that a careful examination of the implications of a theory is sometimes neglected by professional science. Inconsistencies can be revealed by even a lay examination."

 

I find this is true in all fields of study. It is amazing what a little naivity can reveal.

 

 

<BR clear=right>

[tar]

Owl,

 

The article was a bit over my head. I will have to plead stupidy. And bow out, if your discussion is on that level.

 

I apologize for thinking I could add anything to the discussion.

 

In my general inquiry into the meaning behind language, I forgot an important fact. I have no way to know what it means to be more intelligent than I am. If I knew, I would be more intelligent.

 

I'll have to abandon my current strategy of participating in these threads, and go back to reading the works of the great minds that are sitting on the shelf next to me.

 

I'll be back, if and when I think I know something.

 

It has been fun.

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

I didn't say it was a matrix. The "cryptic" terminology you are having difficulty with is basic algebra. [/Quote]

 

"Matrix" is a nice general word. Pick one of your own to describe what time is. Then explain how time travel makes any sense at all, in your own words. After that, how about explaining how "time dilation" is different than "clocks slowing down"... and what makes that happen. Again, "relativity" does not tell us how high velocity and gravity make clocks slow down.

 

The example I gave a few posts back: a moving charge is magnetically attracted to a current-carrying wire. But in the charge's frame, it is at rest, and there can be no magnetic force. But we know a force is there — if it's present in one frame, it must be present in the other (which, btw, is one reason why you can't label it idealism). So your only other option is an electrostatic force. But a regular current-carrying wire is electrically neutral (which I presume, is the realism perspective as well). But if you account for the length contraction of the moving charges, i.e. you properly solve the problem, you get the exact amount of attraction — the charge density is unequal for the two types of charges in the wire.

 

Without the length contraction of relativity, you can't explain electromagnetism. (Though one could, I suppose, be disingenuous and claim we don't understand magnetism, relegating it to mystery and magic)

 

I am not an electrical engineer, so I can make no sense of how you say electromagnetism requires relativity, specifically length contraction. You will understand if I don’t just take your word for it. My brother is an electrical engineer, though, so I will ask him about it.

Do “we” understand magnetism, if claiming we don’t is copping to magic?

 

edit; swansont, 367:

Except it isn't. It's the answer to "what is the shape of the earth as measured by observers in the earth's frame of reference?" You have absolutely no evidence of the shape as measured from radically different frames, so you can't claim that knowledge.

 

Study some *epistemology*. We have a huge amount of evidence that the Earth is nearly spherical and absolutely none that it is very oblate. Show me the evidence that a squished Earth is an equally valid description with what science already *knows* about its shape.

Edited January 9, 2012 by owl

[swansont]

"Matrix" is a nice general word. Pick one of your own to describe what time is. Then explain how time travel makes any sense at all, in your own words. After that, how about explaining how "time dilation" is different than "clocks slowing down"... and what makes that happen. Again, "relativity" does not tell us how high velocity and gravity make clocks slow down.

 

Using the physics definitions, relativity explains time dilation. But you don't accept these definitions and relativity — based solely on ideology — so within these constraints, I can't.

 

I am not an electrical engineer, so I can make no sense of how you say electromagnetism requires relativity, specifically length contraction. You will understand if I don’t just take your word for it. My brother is an electrical engineer, though, so I will ask him about it.

 

Do that. Make sure to include the part about a stationary charge and whether it feels a magnetic force. (It would waste everyone's time if you phrase the question incorrectly)

 

Do “we” understand magnetism, if claiming we don’t is copping to magic?

 

That pretty much sums it up. Relativity united electricity and magnetism ages ago.

 

Study some epistemology. We have a huge amount of evidence that the Earth is nearly spherical and absolutely none that it is very oblate. Show me the evidence that a squished Earth is an equally valid description with what science already *knows* about its shape.

 

Huge amounts of evidence collected from the same frame. You show me the measurements that have been made in a moving frame, in order to support your claim. You explain to me why the earth would not flatten as nuclei do in relativistic collisions. What prevents it? Is "realism" a new force of nature?

[owl]

Using the physics definitions, relativity explains time dilation. But you don't accept these definitions and relativity — based solely on ideology — so within these constraints, I can't.

This is the philosophy section. Philosophy examines the meaning of concepts like time and time travel. You misuse "ideology" as applied to me. You can't explain "what time is" (or "time travel") because the latter is b.s., an the former is all about matching up clock oscillations to observed natural physical processes. There is nothing about "time" that slows down. Processes slow down. This is an ontological distinction that has always eluded you.

 

Do that. Make sure to include the part about a stationary charge and whether it feels a magnetic force. (It would waste everyone's time if you phrase the question incorrectly)

 

He is in Europe right now so it will not be very soon. As an engineer, I'm guessing that he will not give much credibility to what electrons "feel." Even I know about electric polarity... that positive and negative are mutually attracted by magnetic force. Why any of that requires length to get shorter is my question.

me:

Do “we” understand magnetism, if claiming we don’t is copping to magic?

 

That pretty much sums it up. Relativity united electricity and magnetism ages ago.

 

What does that sum up, exactly? My brother and I saw how electricity and magnetism were "united" when we were kids cranking a horseshoe magnet generator together to see who turned loose first. How do magnets attract iron filings?... exactly... force across distance. (How does gravity work... force across distance. How do "entangled particles"... umm... "communicate" at a distance. But I forgot... "how?" does not interest you.

 

Huge amounts of evidence collected from the same frame. You show me the measurements that have been made in a moving frame, in order to support your claim. You explain to me why the earth would not flatten as nuclei do in relativistic collisions. What prevents it? Is "realism" a new force of nature?

 

 

You really have it backwards.* The “burden of proof”( that’s logic as a tool of reason... philosophy of science, where you are very weak and disdainful)... is on one (that would be you in this case) who makes the claim that the flattened Earth is an equally valid description... that with no evidence at all.

*In your own words... this back at you...:

“You show me the measurements that have been made in a moving frame, in order to support your claim.” Can you not even see how ridiculous it is to challenge me to prove your claim from extreme moving frames.

Earth does not care how we observe it. But we have really good info on its shape from up close without the extreme frame *appearences* upon which you insist.

 

Earth does not flatten because it is a massive rigid body with a very well known shape. Nuclei in an accelerator “flattening” on subatomic scale does not transfer to the macro world of spherical bodies like stars or planets, just because a fast moving observer (or abstract frame of reference) might “see” it that way.

To claim that it does transfer requires a huge leap of unfounded extrapolation from the micro to the macro with no evidence at all to support the *assumption* that it applies.

Edit: a request to admin: ('Hey Cap 'n!)

 

I'd like to see a change: That each 'demerit' like I get quite often when anyone doesn't agree with me... requires a critical comment.

Just so we know the merit of demerits, if any. If some idiot doesn't like my posts, that red -1 looks the same as if it came from a critic who was right about me being wrong. (It does happen.)

Edited January 10, 2012 by owl

[owl]

Owl,

 

The article was a bit over my head. I will have to plead stupidy. And bow out, if your discussion is on that level.[/Quote]

The discussion here is not on the level of philosophy of science with Ross's paper. No one here has even addressed his analysis of the assumptions made by non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology as it transitioned from Euclidean.

 

I apologize for thinking I could add anything to the discussion.

But you have. You ask honest questions, even if no one answers besides, 'here is yet another link on relativity.'

For instance, your question about constant 'c', measured in what length and time units, if they vary with frame of reference... was a good one, but there was no direct reply.

(Like so many miles per second for light, claimed as a constant, is not a constant if length contraction claims that miles vary in length and seconds expand/dilate. But nobody else here cares.)

 

I'll be back, if and when I think I know something.

You know enough to ask questions which challenge authority, as above. That is enough.

Thanks for your contributions.

[ydoaPs]

The discussion here is not on the level of philosophy of science with Ross's paper.

Good; That paper was garbage.

 

No one here has even addressed his analysis of the assumptions made by non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology as it transitioned from Euclidean.

You know that the transformation from Euclidean to non-Euclidean is done by REMOVING assumptions, right?

 

The discussion here is not on the level of philosophy of science with Ross's paper. No one here has even addressed his analysis of the assumptions made by non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology as it transitioned from Euclidean.

 

 

But you have. You ask honest questions, even if no one answers besides, 'here is yet another link on relativity.'

For instance, your question about constant 'c', measured in what length and time units, if they vary with frame of reference... was a good one, but there was no direct reply.

(Like so many miles per second for light, claimed as a constant, is not a constant if length contraction claims that miles vary in length and seconds expand/dilate. But nobody else here cares.)

 

 

You know enough to ask questions which challenge authority, as above. That is enough.

Thanks for your contributions.

And I'm fairly certain the point of his post was:

 

[Lost in Space]

I've read through the entire thread and I just thought I'd join instead of remaining a lurker. BTW Owl, thank you for bringing the issue up. I would say that certainly philosophy is relevant (necessary in fact) to science. Despite the red demerits you seem to be receiving, I have enjoyed your posts. I can't say that you're "right" or "wrong" though as I don't possess the knowledge for that.

 

From what little I do know of relativity, it would appear that "time" (whatever that is) does indeed slow with speeds approaching that of light. Unfortunately, I still can't wrap my head around it; thinking of time as another dimension like space is not intuitive for me, nor many of us I'd imagine. The notion that time can be stretched and warped like space is not something that we can really perceive visually. Something about us being 3 dimensional creatures and only being able to perceive a slice of that 4th dimension at any one moment...huh? <<scratches head>>.

 

As far as length contraction goes, from what I understand, it's simply perception based on the observer's frame of reference. Basically, if some idiot martian decides to fly by our planet at near light speed to have a good look, he would see the earth as oblate; however if he were intelligent enough to achieve near light-speed travel, I hope he'd have sense enough to realize that his perception of the planet is skewed due to his rather extreme frame of reference. I'm sure if he wanted to really take a proper look, he'd hit the brakes. The only way that celestial bodies would look natural that way is if there were creatures that existed at or near the speed of light at all times. In that case, that would be their natural frame of reference. For the rest of us (martians included) observing anything at the speed of light would be severely skewed and not reasonable. Kinda like trying to get a good look at something while traveling down the highway at 90 mph.

 

Personally (and philosophically) my take away to all this is that for us as humans, this is largely academic and most of the time-dilation, length contraction issues make for great sci-fi material only. GPS and particle accelerators not withstanding of course . Traveling at or near the speed of light is unlikely to ever be a possibility for us and even if it were, what's the point? To travel to the future? To what end? Once you arrived there, then what? If you didn't like what you saw, you're stuck there and can't return to warn anyone. It's essentially a one-way trip. Pretty damn useless.

 

Light-speed travel to explore the cosmos? Really? We've been gazing at the stars for how long now using telescopes and we've been sending out radio signals for years and we haven't found anything. So far, there's nothing of use out there. Even if we do identify a star system of interest, how do we know that it'll still be there when we arrive? Personally, I'm a human, my ancestors evolved on this planet and I'm designed naturally to live and thrive here; it's unlikely we'd come across a planetoid with similar enough conditions to make life feasible or worth the effort. Nah, I'll stay here thanks. Honestly, NASA could offer me a free ride to Mars tomorrow and I'd turn it down. Oh wait, no more funding for manned space flights. Woohoo, no more boring space launches.

[owl]

Good; That paper was garbage. [/Quote]

 

In your opinion. Your argument so far is 'I disagree with Ross; therefore his paper is crap.' Throwing crap is not an argument against.. except against yourself.

 

You know that the transformation from Euclidean to non-Euclidean is done by REMOVING assumptions, right?

 

That would obviously be, again, your opinion, not a body of certain knowledge of which you are aware and I am not.

 

I seriously doubt if you read the paper. If you did you didn't understand it. The assumptions made in the transition were all non-Euclidean assumptions. Like, 'parallel lines do, after all, intersect.' Or... just imagine a fourth spatial dimension....

Forget that three axes/dimensions describe space exhaustively already. Or, 'let's combine time (whatever it is) with space (whatever it is) and call it a four dimensional coordinate system...' and varieties of time/space manifolds are invented. Forget 'what is it?' ontology as long as the math workd out.

 

Or...Now that mental dimensions are so popular, lets go with all metaphysical imaginary dimensions. That inspired M-Theory to invent seven more of them beyond 3-D space and time. This is not science. It's metaphysics using cryptic math symbols. It's "good" if left equals right on both sides of the 'equal' sign, ( all of this = all of that) even if there is no this and that.

 

Read the paper and get back to me. Or just forget it if you have no interest in ontology as in the paper.

[ydoaPs]

In your opinion. Your argument so far is 'I disagree with Ross; therefore his paper is crap.' Throwing crap is not an argument against.. except against yourself.

No, it's Ross hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, so his paper is crap. It amounted to "I don't know math". That's it. The entire paper. Well, not the whole paper. There was the part where he admitted that everyone in his field, mathematics, and physics disagrees with him, but we've covered that part already.

 

That would obviously be, again, your opinion, not a body of certain knowledge of which you are aware and I am not.

It's an objective fact that non-Euclidean geometry is made by removing assumptions. In fact, that's the DEFINITION of non-Euclidean geometry! Edited January 11, 2012 by ydoaPs

[owl]

No, it's Ross hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, so his paper is crap. It amounted to "I don't know math". That's it. The entire paper. Well, not the whole paper. There was the part where he admitted that everyone in his field, mathematics, and physics disagrees with him, but we've covered that part already.[/Quote]

 

A lot of it "amounted to" a deep analysis of varieties of geometry and resulting cosmology, which you clearly did not comprehend. "... his paper is crap" is obviously just your uninformed opinion. You make no argument at all against the substance of the paper.

 

It's an objective fact that non-Euclidean geometry is made by removing assumptions. In fact, that's the DEFINITION of non-Euclidean geometry!

 

You clearly don't know what "an objective fact" is, which takes away you science credentials, if you had any.

 

Take the first assumption which was the point of departure for non-Euclidean *assumptions.*:

Euclid's fifth postulate is wrong. Parallel lines do cross... like mathematically... "in infinity." Good one. Do you agree, for starters?

How about that curvature of space that gives us all these options for the 'shape of the cosmos?' We have "flat" (like a plane... how is that cosmos with volume?) We have a very nice spherical model. If you draw lines on the surface, they will be curved as arcs but straight lines if you pretend that the surface is flat, not curved.

 

Then we have a very nicely shaped parabolic model of space or the shape of the cosmos. Kind of like a saddle that you could sit on comfortably. Cute.

 

These assumptions are just non-Euclidean openers. So your "objective fact" about which assumptions are which is very clearly totally bogus. Make your case for how Ross is wrong. Or pack it in.

Edited January 11, 2012 by owl

[ydoaPs]

A lot of it "amounted to" a deep analysis of varieties of geometry and resulting cosmology, which you clearly did not comprehend. "... his paper is crap" is obviously just your uninformed opinion. You make no argument at all against the substance of the paper.

What you call "deep analysis" was simply him not understanding math at all.

 

 

You clearly don't know what "an objective fact" is, which takes away you science credentials, if you had any.

The very definition of non-Euclidean geometry is a geometry that does not hold at least one of Euclid's postulates. So, by definition, the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean is a removal of assumptions. Yes, it's objective fact.

[swansont]

This is the philosophy section. Philosophy examines the meaning of concepts like time and time travel. You misuse "ideology" as applied to me.

 

Seems to me that philosophy is doing a piss-poor job of it.

 

i·de·ol·o·gy

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

Since it your belief that realism is true, but you lack objective evidence to support the assertion. e.g. you believe the earth has an intrinsic shape, but only present evidence from one frame of reference. This guides your interpretations of scientific results. Seems apropos to me.

 

You can't explain "what time is" (or "time travel") because the latter is b.s., an the former is all about matching up clock oscillations to observed natural physical processes. There is nothing about "time" that slows down. Processes slow down. This is an ontological distinction that has always eluded you.

 

Your position is quite clear, and I do get the distinction. Disagreement does not mean that the distinction eludes me, it's that I find your arguments to be exceedingly weak and unconvincing, and (more to the point) the implications of them are contrary to careful observation, i.e. what we call science.

 

I get, for example, that you think that time is not real, and as such one cannot measure it. What I don't get is why you think that physics thinks it is real, and why you continually ask what physical thing it is, when that question has been answered — it's not a physical thing. Given that, one has to wonder why you insist on taking descriptions as literal, when they are obviously meant to be figurative.

 

I also wonder why you have held that length is real, and await your support of this. I made some observations on this a few posts back.

 

He is in Europe right now so it will not be very soon. As an engineer, I'm guessing that he will not give much credibility to what electrons "feel." Even I know about electric polarity... that positive and negative are mutually attracted by magnetic force. Why any of that requires length to get shorter is my question.

 

No, actually. "Electric polarity" is positive and negative charges, and that attraction is the electrostatic force. Magnetic forces only come into play when there is relative motion involved. But, as it turns out, magnetic fields are just electric fields as viewed from the other frame of reference. How does that fit into realism?

 

 

What does that sum up, exactly? My brother and I saw how electricity and magnetism were "united" when we were kids cranking a horseshoe magnet generator together to see who turned loose first. How do magnets attract iron filings?... exactly... force across distance. (How does gravity work... force across distance. How do "entangled particles"... umm... "communicate" at a distance. But I forgot... "how?" does not interest you.

 

So "force across distance" is an acceptable explanation to you, with no inquiry about the nature of the underlying process?

 

You really have it backwards.* The “burden of proof”( that’s logic as a tool of reason... philosophy of science, where you are very weak and disdainful)... is on one (that would be you in this case) who makes the claim that the flattened Earth is an equally valid description... that with no evidence at all.

 

I (and others) have presented evidence of length contraction, but you have rejected it. Of course "that's preposterous" isn't much in the way of debunking; it really boils down to the circular reasoning of assuming that realism is true, so any evidence that contradicts realism must be rejected. Which is pretty crappy logic. Then there's the evidence you aren't in a position to evaluate, by your own admission. But argument from ignorance is crappy logic, too.

 

*In your own words... this back at you...:

“You show me the measurements that have been made in a moving frame, in order to support your claim.” Can you not even see how ridiculous it is to challenge me to prove your claim from extreme moving frames.

 

But I can and have proved evidence of the phenomenon occurring. You demand a specific set of evidence, much like a creationist who will only accept a videotape as evidence of dinosaur evolution. The problem is that you don't get to demand specific evidence. Anyone who has taught about the scientific method should know this.

 

Earth does not care how we observe it. But we have really good info on its shape from up close without the extreme frame *appearences* upon which you insist.

 

Earth does not flatten because it is a massive rigid body with a very well known shape. Nuclei in an accelerator “flattening” on subatomic scale does not transfer to the macro world of spherical bodies like stars or planets, just because a fast moving observer (or abstract frame of reference) might “see” it that way.

 

The fact that you are bringing up the earth as a rigid body indicates that you don't understand relativity — it's a non-sequitur. The earth does not "change shape" in any way that rigidity is meaningful, which is why I/we have resisted the use of that word. (Ironically, you are reifying the effect here — actual reification and not the faux reification from taking figurative descriptions as literal. Length is not a physical object. As a dimension, it's a concept)

 

To claim that it does transfer requires a huge leap of unfounded extrapolation from the micro to the macro with no evidence at all to support the *assumption* that it applies.

 

But within the paradigms of physics, it's not unfounded. Just as we extrapolated the effects of gravity to send people to the moon and satellites into the solar system and beyond. Nobody measured those effects. Within the physics model, changes to time and length are reciprocal effects, and we have tested at various scales of speed. We've made many measurements, and they all confirm the model. That's what science does — builds models and then confirms or rejects them.

[owl]

What you call "deep analysis" was simply him not understanding math at all. [/Quote]

 

Check the title of his paper against the title of this thread. You assume that all understanding of non-Euclidean geometry depends on being a mathematician. His paper is entitled:

"The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry."

Ontology is the part of the philosophy of science which examines the meaning of the concepts (and existence of the entities) and assumptions which the math represents in symbols an formulae.

 

For instance he has a section on intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature in which he examines the the basic *assumptions* upon which the transition to non-Euclidean depends.

 

In light of the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature, we must consider all the kinds of ontological axioms that will cover all the possible spaces that Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries can describe.

 

You:

The very definition of non-Euclidean geometry is a geometry that does not hold at least one of Euclid's postulates. So, by definition, the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean is a removal of assumptions. Yes, it's objective fact.

 

Non-Euclidean geometry begins by abandoning Euclid’s fifth postulate and *assumes* that, under some imagined geometry and the math of “infinity," parallel lines do intersect. Of course, they would no longer be parallel, by Euclidean definition, if they intersected, so the first move in the transition to non-Euclidean, was to *assume* a new definition for parallel lines.

 

I do not dispute that the latter was a reinvention of geometry, but I simply state that it was based on new *assumptions* dumping Euclid’s postulates.

It also got rid of maybe the simplest principle in geometry, that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Swansont and I went a few rounds over this one. If you call the surface of a sphere a flat plane, then you can call lines drawn on it “straight lines,” but the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the sphere is still *straight through the sphere*, regardless of the intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature distinction made by non-Euclidean geometry, and covered in detail in Ross’ paper.

 

Do you want to argue the semantics of “assumptions” or tell me where you think Ross was wrong, making his paper “crap?”

 

While you are at it, how can parallel lines intersect and still be described as parallel?

Do you understand intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature? Do you deny that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

The math is not the meaning.

 

Seems to me that philosophy is doing a piss-poor job of it.

 

i·de·ol·o·gy

the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

Since it your belief that realism is true, but you lack objective evidence to support the assertion. e.g. you believe the earth has an intrinsic shape, but only present evidence from one frame of reference. This guides your interpretations of scientific results. Seems apropos to me. [/Quote]

 

You keep hammering on "lack of evidence" for the assertion that Earth is nearly spherical when in fact all known evidence verifies that, and there is no evidence to the contrary. It might appear very oblate from a high speed frame. The Cap 'n's last challenge to me in this context was to define "is." I contrasted "is" with "appears" and didn't hear from him again.

Squeezed nuclei in an accelerator is not evidence that a squeezed Earth is equally valid. (Hundredth time or so on that point.)

...

I get, for example, that you think that time is not real, and as such one cannot measure it. What I don't get is why you think that physics thinks it is real, and why you continually ask what physical thing it is, when that question has been answered — it's not a physical thing. Given that, one has to wonder why you insist on taking descriptions as literal, when they are obviously meant to be figurative.

I have agreed over and over that clocks slow down, etc., etc, but question the ontology of "time dilation" as a reification of time. To say that "time slows down" is quite different than to say that "clocks slow down." The difference is important.

One implication is that, once time is reifiied, the "possibility" arises that we can "travel through it" to the past or future. You run and hide whenever I mention this.

 

I also wonder why you have held that length is real, and await your support of this. I made some observations on this a few posts back.

 

Here it is again with the really beat to death example of Earth's diameter.** (Ref below)

The diameter of Earth is a length, and Earth is not imaginary but a real body with an actual size and shape. You insist that "Length Is Not Invariant." The double negative means that length varies. So you insist that the diameter of Earth varies. That is the idealism of "no preferred frame of reference" in which the claim is that Earth IS how it is OBSERVED from different frames... therefore the shape of Earth varies with observation... which is false.

 

No, actually. "Electric polarity" is positive and negative charges, and that attraction is the electrostatic force. Magnetic forces only come into play when there is relative motion involved. But, as it turns out, magnetic fields are just electric fields as viewed from the other frame of reference. How does that fit into realism?

 

OK. Again, I'm not an electrical engineer, and I will pick my brother's brain on it at first opportunity. This electrical nit picking was your derailment of my point, which still holds: that ammeters detect and measure the power of electric current in a wire or system... as a contrast with what clocks do (or not) with "time." Clocks tick. We can compare the conventional time units they tick off with other observed physical processes and then say that so much time elapsed. That is way different than the ammeter example.

 

So "force across distance" is an acceptable explanation to you, with no inquiry about the nature of the underlying process?

 

There is no explanation at all that I know of for "force across distance" in the examples I have used. That was my point. You and the other relativity advocates here are the ones saying that how it works doesn't matter as long as we can predict results. So it doesn't matter what 'spacetime' is or how mass curves it or how it guides objects into curved paths... as long as relativity is an improvement over Newtonian gravity theory... which it is.

So, if Quantum theory of gravity with its "massless messenger particles", "gravitons" turns out to be another improvement, we can throw out GR's "spacetime." But we still will not know how mass attracts mass at a distance.

...

But I can and have proved evidence of the phenomenon occurring. You demand a specific set of evidence, much like a creationist who will only accept a videotape as evidence of dinosaur evolution. The problem is that you don't get to demand specific evidence. Anyone who has taught about the scientific method should know this.

 

You have in no way shown how (apparently) squeezed atomic nuclei in an accelerator transfers to an actually (not just apparently) "squeezed Earth." ... or how a massive rigid body like Earth could be so altered.... nor have you addressed the difference between "is very oblate" and "would appear very oblate", which is central to the difference between realism and the length contraction version of idealism which you promote.

 

The fact that you are bringing up the earth as a rigid body indicates that you don't understand relativity — it's a non-sequitur. The earth does not "change shape" in any way that rigidity is meaningful, which is why I/we have resisted the use of that word. (Ironically, you are reifying the effect here — actual reification and not the faux reification from taking figurative descriptions as literal. Length is not a physical object. As a dimension, it's a concept)

 

See ** above. The girth of Earth, of course, does not change with observational perspectives/frames. We use the word length (or distance) to describe that "girth", say its equatorial diameter. You say that length is variable with frame of reference. Earth may *appear* squished from extreme frames, but it Does Not change shape.

 

... more of the 'have you tested gravity in your living room' pseudo- argument. Yes. It is tested and verified with every step, as we all stick to what we are walking on.

This is not an argument for flattened high speed nuclei applying to a flattened Earth, as seen from a high speed frame. This is going nowhere... still.

Edited January 11, 2012 by owl

[Lost in Space]

You insist that "Length Is Not Invariant." The double negative means that length varies.

 

Finally someone pointed this out. Anyone care to explain why the fact length can vary is worded as a double-negative? It's quite annoying and isn't the first time I've noticed such grammatical errors when reading scientific papers. An awful roundabout and clumsy way of saying that length can vary.

 

So you insist that the diameter of Earth varies. That is the idealism of "no preferred frame of reference" in which the claim is that Earth IS how it is OBSERVED from different frames... therefore the shape of Earth varies with observation... which is false.

 

I'd like some clarification on this as well. In reading some of the responses in this thread it appears that they're saying the shape of the earth will depend on the frame of reference of the observer. Now forgive me for being pedantic but seeing as we're the only sentient beings in the universe capable of observing anything, wouldn't that mean that there is only one relevant frame of reference. Where are these other frames of reference and who are these observers? The only ones asking about the shape of the planet are us humans and thus far, the correct answer remains "mostly spherical".

 

Somehow this discussion has devolved into a debate about the Theory of Relativity. So in that spirit, it should be noted that it is just a theory and that the recent findings at CERN are already casting shadows of doubt. Jus sayin'

[ydoaPs]

Seems to me that philosophy is doing a piss-poor job of it.

Owl and the unknown idiot who wrote the paper he is infatuated with are not representative of philosophy.

 

Non-Euclidean geometry begins by abandoning Euclid’s fifth postulate and *assumes* that, under some imagined geometry and the math of “infinity," parallel lines do intersect.

No, it says "what happens if we don't assume this?" and then shows that they do intersect. It's removing an assumption and then seeing what happens. Despite what you believe since you're as incompetent at math as Ross, a geodesic IS the shortest distance between two points in a curved space. Interestingly enough, non-Euclean geometry has been experimentally confirmed more times than you can count.

 

If you call the surface of a sphere a flat plane, then you can call lines drawn on it “straight lines,” but the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the sphere is still *straight through the sphere*

No, it's not. If you have a line intersecting a sphere, you have two points rather than a line connecting them. A sphere is a two dimensional object-it has no thickness. When we do spherical geometry, the sphere is the entire space. A geodesic does not curve in the space of the sphere; ie, its second derivative is a constant. If you were to take the sphere and cut it up and flatten it out, the geodesic would be perfectly flat. If we take a Euclidean space with a line on it and roll the space into a cylinder, the line is STILL straight. This is just you not understanding math.

 

I'll go through Ross's "paper" paragraph by paragraph here if you'd like, but I probably won't get to it until tomorrow as I've got real philosophy to do.

 

Finally someone pointed this out. Anyone care to explain why the fact length can vary is worded as a double-negative? It's quite annoying and isn't the first time I've noticed such grammatical errors when reading scientific papers. An awful roundabout and clumsy way of saying that length can vary.

"Not invariant" is a very specific kind of varying. If something is "constant", it doesn't change within a frame of reference. If something is "invariant", it doesn't change when reference frames are changed.

[StringJunky]

Part of the title of Ross's paper doesn't make sense to me...what is the "Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry"? It would make sense to me if it read; The Ontology of Non-Euclidean Geometry In Cosmology. Am I being thick here?