Is philosophy relevant to science?

[swansont]

The rule you cite is based on non-Euclidean geometry which is not above criticism.

It has replaced 3-D space (plus time) with various mental, conceptual models (manifolds) which still require ontological verification as to what they represent in the real world... which makes it part of this thread’s focus.

 

Requiring ontological verification is your assertion; you STILL haven't listed any examples of science that has been held back because of the lack of ontological verification.

 

 

For openers, Euclids’ fifth postulate has not been disproven, only sidestepped by claiming that, in a math model, parallel lines will intersect “in infinity.” In the real world, if lines intersect, they are not parallel lines.

 

You aren't a mathematician. So should I accept this as valid mathematics, or is it more likely it's yet another example of you redefining terms to suit your needs? Since you are appealing to "in the real world" I think I choose the latter.

 

Second, the shortest distance between two points is still a straight line.* You can project a straight line onto a curved surface, and that projection becomes a curved line on that surface. But, as I said, ontology questions whether or not space it is anything that can have the property of curvature. It is not an established fact, i.e., that space is curved and has form (flat, parabolic or spherical,) though the *stuff in space* is distributed in whatever debatable form. These are fundamental questions asked by ontology, a division of the philosophy of science in which you have no interest, yet you claim expertise.

 

I claimed no expertise in ontology. I do however, call BS on your claims about science: that ontology is a requirement to do science, and the various ways you have misrepresented relativity.

 

It is an established fact that there is curvature of space in the theory of General Relativity. It is a geometric model. The theory makes no ontological claims.

 

Btw, the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is still a straight line through the sphere, point to point. The “rule” that the line must stay on the surface is only in the non-Euclidean, “space is curved” *model*.

 

Which is the model we are using in GR. And in the context of that model, you use the surface. If you go through the sphere you aren't on the surface, so you fail to fulfill the boundary conditions. (So "go through the sphere" is an example of a wrong answer) As I said before, you can't ask the question and dictate the answer.

 

Glad to hear it. You will be happier sticking to the physics section and the axioms that you have learned as facts than trying to debate philosophy of science in this section.

I in turn intend to stay out of the physics section.

 

It would help if you would stop trying to make claims about physics.

 

Cite the instance or retract.

 

OK, I'll cite it again.

 

Ontologically, space is the empty volume between things, not counting forces as "things" for the moment. It has no surface.

When speaking of a straight line, I recognize no such rule. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is not along its surface but straight through it from one point to the other.

 

You can't simply ignore the terminology and/or decide to deliberately redefine it to suit your taste. It's intellectually dishonest.

[md65536]

Btw, before I take off for the weekend (or while I am gone) will you please answer the following, now posed for the third time... very relevant to the "length contraction" part of relativity theory:

"Do you really, truly deny that "...the distance to the Sun (remains) around 93 million miles, regardless of who is flying by at whatever speed measuring it?"...

or that a squished nearly flat shape of Earth is equally valid with the well established nearly spherical shape?

Folks, owl has been kind enough to provide some discussion material to keep us going while he is away and there is no one to tend his thread, and we haven't even managed a half-decent answer to this thrice-asked question yet.

 

I myself don't feel qualified to answer, having already given unaccepted answers to same question when it was asked in the form of "Do you honestly think that..." and "No seriously, do you really really really think that... (really?!)"

 

He'll be back soon and it would be quite embarrassing if we didn't have an answer this time that's at least better than the pitiful sets of replies we gave last two times around.

 

 

[PeterJ]

I don't know the answer but I've always assumed that for the person flying by our solar system the distance bettween Sun and Earth would be whatever the maths says it'll be, and for higher speeds that would not be 93 million miles. Is this not correct?

[owl]

Owl, my friend, you have a damn strange way of trying to get people to agree with you.

I really don't give a damn who agrees with me. I just say it as I see it. Have done so all my life. Not likely to change that custom anytime soon.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't know the answer but I've always assumed that for the person flying by our solar system the distance bettween Sun and Earth would be whatever the maths says it'll be, and for higher speeds that would not be 93 million miles. Is this not correct?

That is correct.

[owl]

I don't know the answer but I've always assumed that for the person flying by our solar system the distance bettween Sun and Earth would be whatever the maths says it'll be, and for higher speeds that would not be 93 million miles. Is this not correct?

In my opinion it is not correct. (The emphasis goes for every thing I say. It should 'go without saying' for all of us.)

 

"For the person flying by" then defines reality from his perspective. Idealism. The distance between Sun and Earth does not, in fact, change, "for" any hypothetical observer. This is idealism and it makes "reality" dependent on how observers see it, however limited their/our means of perception.

No, in reality, Earth and Sun will remain about 93 million miles away from each other, on average, regardless of the homosapient model or the math.

[PeterJ]

I really don't give a damn who agrees with me. I just say it as I see it. Have done so all my life. Not likely to change that custom anytime soon.

Damn right. My comment was out of order. I think I'd just reread that remark you made about PhDs, and imagined the reaction that I would have had to it if it was relevant to me. But it's none of my business.

[tar]

Owl,

 

Realism and Idealism? Don't know what the "excepted" meaning are. Am not well read enough.

 

I look at it this way. There is the thing as it is, which is real. And then there is the way we understand it to be, which is our "idea" of it.

 

Not having your IQ scores, I am probably not capable of the speed and accuracy with which you can "bounce" from one to the other. But a bounce is required. That is, you need to change perspective to entertain the perceptions that are "real" and the ones that are "ideal".

 

On a personal note, I have alway had difficulty with deductive and inductive reasoning, that is, knowing the difference between the two. It seems to me that we reason in both directions, and would have a hard time reasoning either way, with out the help of the other.

 

But I think you give yourself too much credit, if you think that others before you, especially the minds working on the math and transforms of relativity, are not capable of the "sound shifting" from one perspective to the other that you engage in. In fact, given the math required, to understand what is being said, I would venture to guess that the people working in the field have quite agile minds. And have the ability to tell reality from ideas about reality.

 

We are, even the dullest of us, built to comphrehend reality. Otherwise we would not think there was such a thing.

 

If the speed of light is always found to be a constant speed, then distance and time CANNOT be invariant. It does not work out mathematically, if this is not the case. (that is what has been discovered about reality, and tested and verified).

 

Your"idea" of the distance between the Earth and the Sun not varying with velocity GOES AGAINST what has been discovered about reality.

 

Why would your idea be more sound than the reality of the situation? Regardless of how smart you are?

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

PeterJ; post 155:

I don't know the answer but I've always assumed that for the person flying by our solar system the distance bettween Sun and Earth would be whatever the maths says it'll be, and for higher speeds that would not be 93 million miles. Is this not correct?

 

That is correct.

The Cap 'n is of the opinion that length contraction is beyond criticism, i.e., that "whatever the maths says it'll be" (based on the *theory* of length contraction) is in fact "correct" or factual, beyond mere theory.

So philosophy has nothing to do with it. Observation, "for" whatever observer, from whatever frame of reference, establishes "reality" for that observer/relative frame.

Debate over. Idealism wins. ... Or at least theory/math/conceptual manifold wins over cosmos as Reality independent of observation.

I don't think so. This opinion rules in the relativity theory camp, but this section is where we get to discuss philosophy of science, like idealism vs realism, and the ontology of 'what it is', like curved spacetime vs gravitons as *theories* of how gravity works.

 

What is "correct" about the distance to the Sun or the

Shape of Earth?

The "length contraction" part of SR and the "curved spacetime" part of GR, both theories do not get to dictate "Reality" and claim that the distance between bodies in our solar system, and their shape, are dependent on how we see them from extreme frames of reference.

 

Just a philosophical point here in the midst of official pronouncements of what is real and correct according to specific theories of relativity.

 

Owl,

 

Realism and Idealism? Don't know what the "excepted" meaning are. Am not well read enough.

 

I look at it this way. There is the thing as it is, which is real. And then there is the way we understand it to be, which is our "idea" of it.

 

And if we "understand" the world to change with how we see it... or remain inscrutable because of the variety of 'frames' observing it, then it remains all in our minds, our "idea" of it..,.idealism.

 

Not having your IQ scores, I am probably not capable of the speed and accuracy with which you can "bounce" from one to the other. But a bounce is required. That is, you need to change perspective to entertain the perceptions that are "real" and the ones that are "ideal".

 

I only pull the IQ card when challenged on the "credentials" or "popularity" scales, the irrelevant ad hominem arguments here about credentials.

I see no "bounce" between any polar opposites. Scientists all want to know how "It" works, and some of us also want to know what "It' is... whatever the focus... "matter made of atoms" (what is it made of?) or whatever.

The epistemology as I see it is not a metaphorical alternating current but DC. The more we observe very closely, the better we "know" whatever it IS that we are observing.

 

On a personal note, I have alway had difficulty with deductive and inductive reasoning, that is, knowing the difference between the two. It seems to me that we reason in both directions, and would have a hard time reasoning either way, with out the help of the other.

 

The way I understand the difference is that inductive gathers evidence into a hypothesis... maybe eventually a theory to see if it fits... by observation, always. If the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis, it is dumped, the "null hypothesis" verified.

 

Deductive begins with a reasonable proposition, like "the whole universe does/did not fit inside of the volume of 'an atom'...."

( as claimed in the "History" tv program, "The History of the World in Two Hours')...

or, as claimed by Hawking... from a "point of infinite mass density no volume."

 

Then, if that knowledge and deduction turns out to be true and our a-priori knowledge was correct, then these models will turn out to be nonsense... i.e., false.

 

But I think you give yourself too much credit, if you think that others before you, especially the minds working on the math and transforms of relativity, are not capable of the "sound shifting" from one perspective to the other that you engage in. In fact, given the math required, to understand what is being said, I would venture to guess that the people working in the field have quite agile minds. And have the ability to tell reality from ideas about reality.

 

I would prefer that, in science, no one would be interested in personal 'credit.'

 

We are, even the dullest of us, built to comphrehend reality. Otherwise we would not think there was such a thing.

Yes, but subjective perception does not create individual 'realities' as equal to Reality as it is. "What is it?," is one valid question. "How does it work" is another. Neither is answered by subjective perception from individual points of view.

 

If the speed of light is always found to be a constant speed, then distance and time CANNOT be invariant. It does not work out mathematically, if this is not the case. (that is what has been discovered about reality, and tested and verified).

 

The greatest cosmological mystery to me (besides the increasing rate of cosmic expansion)is the invariance of lightseed, which is so well documented. (No sarcasm here.)

Light is the greatest mystery to material/matter-focused physics.

So you have a choice between shrinking objects and distances and the measurements of constant lightspeed, using, by necessity, light as the mediums of information transmission.

 

It can not be "pushed" by a fast rocket... we know that. But that rocket can travel right into the tail of its projected lightbeam and confuse the observers into thinking that either distance has shortened or "time' has expanded.

Platform of observation does not effect that which is observed... except in idealism. Think about it.

 

 

Your"idea" of the distance between the Earth and the Sun not varying with velocity GOES AGAINST what has been discovered about reality.

 

The vast majority of philosophers think that idealism is b.s. (I have not taken a survey, but I have studied a lot of philosophers.)

If you think that Earth either distorts drastically as observed from extreme frames or can not be accurately described because of the dogma of "no preferred frames of reference", then I see no difference between your belief and any given dogma denying evidence to the contrary (like Earth is NOT nearly flattened, very oblate, but nearly spherical.)

 

Why would your idea be more sound than the reality of the situation? Regardless of how smart you are?

 

First, they are not just my ideas, but an integral philosophy of realism integrated from a lot of academic study... plus what I call "free thinking" here... an unfamiliar phrase to some.

 

What?... You give me a choice between "(my) idea" and "the reality of the situation?" Tough choice!

Like... "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Iggy]

On a personal note, I have alway had difficulty with deductive and inductive reasoning, that is, knowing the difference between the two....

 

If the speed of light is always found to be a constant speed, then distance and time CANNOT be invariant.

Inescapable deductive fact, and no truer words...

 

Owl's disbelief might just be related to his displayed difficulty in understanding the deductive reasoning moving from the "if" to the "then".

Edited December 6, 2011 by Iggy

[owl]

Requiring ontological verification is your assertion; you STILL haven't listed any examples of science that has been held back because of the lack of ontological verification.

Part of the 'relevance of philosophy to science' is the inquiry into (looking for answers) to the existential question epistemology poses, 'what is it?', in each case. Not "my assertion" about anything. Even your (and Cap's) insistence that what it is doesn't matter is an ontological assertion.

 

The truth about the shape of Earth as an entity with intrinsic properties (not a mental model) is "held back" by the "assertion" of length contraction theory that it may not actually be spherical but nearly flattened, or that we will never know its shape for sure because of all the competing frames of reference. Very relevant to assumed philosophy.

 

You aren't a mathematician. So should I accept this as valid mathematics, or is it more likely it's yet another example of you redefining terms to suit your needs? Since you are appealing to "in the real world" I think I choose the latter.

Not "my needs." It's always personal with you. No, I am not a mathematician. But I've studied a lot of geometry, and I gave you the major departure from Euclid and challenged how intersecting lines can still be called parallel. Math can not make parallel lines intersect! It is the first of many major fallacies introduced by non-Euclidean geometry. And attributing shape to space is another, IF space is no-"thing" as some ontologists, including me, argue.

The denial of the Euclidean assertion that 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line' is simply nonsense based on the projection I already explained in detail.

 

I claimed no expertise in ontology. I do however, call BS on your claims about science: that ontology is a requirement to do science, and the various ways you have misrepresented relativity.

 

Non-Euclidean geometry (and resulting cosmology) is based on the (arguably) false ontology of attributing curvature and shape to space, as if it were an entity. It requires some appreciation of ontology to even recognize such assumptions as such.

You keep saying that I misrepresent relativity, while I say that, ontologically, length contraction presents a false reality to describe Earth and our solar system based on extreme and unverified hypothetical assumptions. A flattened Earth really is a batch of nonsense.

 

It is an established fact that there is curvature of space in the theory of General Relativity. It is a geometric model. The theory makes no ontological claims.

 

The reason that it is called the "theory" of the curvature of space in GR is that it does not in fact have the status of a "fact." You do well to claim no expertise in ontology, because, to repeat, curved space is not an established fact.

 

Which is the model we are using in GR. And in the context of that model, you use the surface. If you go through the sphere you aren't on the surface, so you fail to fulfill the boundary conditions. (So "go through the sphere" is an example of a wrong answer) As I said before, you can't ask the question and dictate the answer.

 

This is tedious, but ontology challenges every "model" to refer to the world/cosmos which it attempts to describe.

Beyond the context of the model, in the real world, there is no such restriction that a line must follow the curvature of a sphere. It is just a rule pertaining to that model.

There is no absolute Reality of curved space, be it spherical, flat, or parabolic. In the "space is empty volume" model, "it" has no properties at all but empty volume, occupied here and there by things that do have shape.

Pick two points in space. Mark them with space buoys at rest with each other. The distance between them is a straight line. It need not follow any hypothetical curvature.

 

It would help if you would stop trying to make claims about physics.

 

Likewise, it would help if you would stop trying to dominate a discussion of the ontology of space in the philosophy section with the rules of non-Euclidean geometry as if they were established facts.

 

OK, I'll cite it again.

Me:

Ontologically, space is the empty volume between things, not counting forces as "things" for the moment. It has no surface.

When speaking of a straight line, I recognize no such rule. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is not along its surface but straight through it from one point to the other.

You;

You can't simply ignore the terminology and/or decide to deliberately redefine it to suit your taste. It's intellectually dishonest.

It still is not about me, as you keep insisting. It is an ontology of Euclidean geometry as relevant to the cosmos of space and the stuff in it. Again, non-Euclidean has not become the absolute reality you seem to believe it is.

Edited December 6, 2011 by owl

[ralfy]

Definitely, as scientists are human.

[Sorcerer]

I didn't read the thread and I don't think I need to. Science is a philosophy. In fact in most universities u can take "the philosophy of science" as a 100 level paper.

[swansont]

Part of the 'relevance of philosophy to science' is the inquiry into (looking for answers) to the existential question epistemology poses, 'what is it?', in each case. Not "my assertion" about anything. Even your (and Cap's) insistence that what it is doesn't matter is an ontological assertion.

 

Except science actually works. So saying I don't have to answer the ontological question isn't just an assertion.

 

 

The truth about the shape of Earth as an entity with intrinsic properties (not a mental model) is "held back" by the "assertion" of length contraction theory that it may not actually be spherical but nearly flattened, or that we will never know its shape for sure because of all the competing frames of reference. Very relevant to assumed philosophy.

 

To the philosophy. Not the science.

 

Not "my needs." It's always personal with you. No, I am not a mathematician. But I've studied a lot of geometry, and I gave you the major departure from Euclid and challenged how intersecting lines can still be called parallel. Math can not make parallel lines intersect! It is the first of many major fallacies introduced by non-Euclidean geometry. And attributing shape to space is another, IF space is no-"thing" as some ontologists, including me, argue.

The denial of the Euclidean assertion that 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line' is simply nonsense based on the projection I already explained in detail.

 

You always make it personal. "To suit the needs of the argument you present" then. But, since it is your argument, here, they are your needs.

 

By arguing semantics you miss the nuance. Lines that fit the bill of being parallel (both perpendicular to another line) in flat space intersect if the geometry is not flat. That's the important concept. But instead of grasping that, you focus on the use of parallel and go no further.

 

The reason that it is called the "theory" of the curvature of space in GR is that it does not in fact have the status of a "fact." You do well to claim no expertise in ontology, because, to repeat, curved space is not an established fact.

 

This phrasing makes it look an awful lot like you don't actually know the definition of theory as used by science. The implication that a theory would someday "grow up" to be a fact is not a mistake I would expect of someone who taught material related to science.

[owl]

Swansont:

By arguing semantics you miss the nuance. Lines that fit the bill of being parallel (both perpendicular to another line) in flat space intersect if the geometry is not flat. That's the important concept. But instead of grasping that, you focus on the use of parallel and go no further.

 

It is ontology, not semantics, to question the concept of “the shape of space.” “Flat” describes a plane in Euclidean geometry, not “space”, which includes the third dimension, volume, even though it has become commonplace in non-euclidean geometry to call Euclidean space “flat.” Empty volume does not curve or have shape, like the parabolic or spherical models.

Me:

The reason that it is called the "theory" of the curvature of space in GR is that it does not in fact have the status of a "fact." You do well to claim no expertise in ontology, because, to repeat, curved space is not an established fact.

You:

This phrasing makes it look an awful lot like you don't actually know the definition of theory as used by science. The implication that a theory would someday "grow up" to be a fact is not a mistake I would expect of someone who taught material related to science.

 

I was using “theory” in the more general sense, as in Wikipedia’s:

 

...in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena,.

 

I recently referred to the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.

From post 159:

The way I understand the difference is that inductive gathers evidence into an hypothesis... maybe eventually a theory to see if it fits... by observation, always.

My usage of “theory” need not conform to a formal, narrow category to convey the above more general sense of it.

 

Finally, back to the root of the argument about length contraction.

I repeat:

Light is the greatest mystery to material/matter-focused physics. (edit:... that and the increasing rate of cosmic expansion... in my opinion.)

So you have a choice between shrinking objects and distances and the measurements of constant lightspeed, using, by necessity, light as the medium of information transmission.

 

It can not be "pushed" ( ed: faster) by a fast rocket... we know that. But that rocket can travel right into the tail of its projected light beam and confuse observers into thinking that either distance has shortened or "time' has expanded.

The question remains, "How does going faster make the distance shorter?" It certainly takes less time to get there. But, in the real cosmos, the distance between stars is a cosmic scale reality, and it's not going to close, or get shorter (theey will not move closer together) because a little rocket ship is traveling at nearly lightspeed between them.

The passengers will probably age more slowly, as I have often agreed, but is not the same as "time expanding (dilating) or its reciprocal, distance becoming shorter.

This is an ontological perspective.

[tar]

"What?... You give me a choice between "(my) idea" and "the reality of the situation?" Tough choice!

Like... "Have you stopped beating your wife?""

 

Owl,

 

You made me laugh out loud. I gave you a point.

 

 

And thanks for the rest of the post.

 

I am looking at it this way. There is this reality that we are in and of. It is a given.

We all feel that it is real, so we are all realists.

We all have ideas about it, so we are all idealists.

 

Now, when we get together and share our ideas about it, we are philosophers, or believers, or scientists or maybe all three.

 

If we put too much emphasis on our own ideas...that is consider them fact...without the ideas being verifiable by others in the same human boat, then there is a possibility that our ideas of what is the nature of the thing in and of itself, may be erroneous. If we get together and all agree on a fact about reality, even though it is our collective "idea" about what the thing in itself is...it is "as close" as we can get to it. And for all intents and purposes, what is real to everybody (all humans) and verifiable to all humans, IS reality. There is no "higher" authority we can go to than our "collective" GOD. That is, our personal God, our personal view of reality, though "correct" in our own minds, becomes MORE correct, when two people have the same "idea". If "everybody" holds the same belief, as to what is real...then that is "scientifically" an accurate description of reality...even though it could still be thought of as a limited "idea" by some unhelpful philosophical one upsmanship.

 

Or like the "blind men and the elephant". Each of us is sure it is rather like a leaf or a snake or a tree or a wall, but when we put our stories together, rather than stopping at our own take...we've got the whole damn elephant.

 

or

 

one person's model of reality equals one person's idea of it

everybody's model of reality, taken together, equals reality itself (for all intents and purposes)

 

Regards, TAR2

 

So have you stopped?

 

Is it rather like a 93million mile tree, or is it a C-elephant?

 

And Owl, I am OK with you beating your wife. She probably was asking for it.

[Iggy]

I am looking at it this way. There is this reality that we are in and of. It is a given.

We all feel that it is real, so we are all realists.

We all have ideas about it, so we are all idealists.

 

Now, when we get together and share our ideas about it, we are philosophers, or believers, or scientists or maybe all three.

 

If we put too much emphasis on our own ideas...that is consider them fact...without the ideas being verifiable by others in the same human boat, then there is a possibility that our ideas of what is the nature of the thing in and of itself, may be erroneous. If we get together and all agree on a fact about reality, even though it is our collective "idea" about what the thing in itself is...it is "as close" as we can get to it. And for all intents and purposes, what is real to everybody (all humans) and verifiable to all humans, IS reality. There is no "higher" authority we can go to than our "collective" GOD. That is, our personal God, our personal view of reality, though "correct" in our own minds, becomes MORE correct, when two people have the same "idea". If "everybody" holds the same belief, as to what is real...then that is "scientifically" an accurate description of reality...even though it could still be thought of as a limited "idea" by some unhelpful philosophical one upsmanship.

 

Or like the "blind men and the elephant". Each of us is sure it is rather like a leaf or a snake or a tree or a wall, but when we put our stories together, rather than stopping at our own take...we've got the whole damn elephant.

I'd disagree with the bolded part.

 

Don't you think science should be indifferent to consensus?

[swansont]

The question remains, "How does going faster make the distance shorter?"

 

The question has been answered dozens of times. It is a direct consequence of the speed of light being invariant. You can reject science and statements with which you disagree because they offend your sensibilities, but don't pretend that the answers haven't been given.

[owl]

Me:

The question remains, "How does going faster make the distance shorter?"

 

The question has been answered dozens of times. It is a direct consequence of the speed of light being invariant. You can reject science and statements with which you disagree because they offend your sensibilities, but don't pretend that the answers haven't been given.

Me:

But, in the real cosmos, the distance between stars is a cosmic scale reality, and it's not going to close, or get shorter (they will not move closer together) because a little rocket ship is traveling at nearly lightspeed between them.

Ok, how do we know what we know? Some by observation, the a-posteriori, empirical branch of epistemology, and some by reason, the a-priori branch.

MY quote above is based on both. The knowledge that the distance between Earth and Sun does not vary with how we look at it is another. We know this by observation (precise measurements) and by reason.

 

We do have the observation that the speed of light is constant, and I have commented on that observation recently and need not repeat.

We also have the extremely well documented observation that Earth is nearly spherical. But if we apply the length contraction theory to an extreme frame of reference observing it , it may appear nearly flattened. Can good science sort that out, or must we believe that Earth, after all, may be the latter shape, or that we can not know it's true shape because of the unresolved mystery of our measurements of lightspeed?

 

To make my "distance between stars" example more specific, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. It takes 4.3 years for its light to reach us.

If a spaceship were to travel from here to there at near lightspeed, first, it could not travel faster than light, so it would take it over 4.3 years to get there, regardless of the effects of relativity (high speed) causing probable retarding of the aging process in its passengers... and the subjective sense that less than 4.3 years had passed.(Edit: Also, the spaceship clock/calendar would show less time having passed, because the clock would have slowed down.)

 

Secondly, all of the above can not and will not make the distance between here and there shorter. The distances between stars does not change with the speed of travelers between them. The cosmos is real as it is and independent of observation and measurement.

This is based on realism, which is based on reason, which is a legitimate way that we know what we know. And length contraction on large scale is still an unverified theory, which is total nonsense as applied to the observed cosmos, the real world, given all the arguments presented yet again above.

 

Follow up on the Swansont’s “intellectually dishonest” accusation; From my post 147:

Me:

The rule you cite is based on non-Euclidean geometry which is not above criticism.

It has replaced 3-D space (plus time) with various mental, conceptual models (manifolds) which still require ontological verification as to what they represent in the real world... which makes it part of this thread’s focus...

 

My disagreement with assumptions about straight vs curved lines is based on an honest disagreement with the models developed by non-Euclidean geometry, i.e., their lack of “real world” reference, as I have already explained in detail.

 

You still owe me a retraction. My disagreement did not constitute “intellectual dishonest.”

Here is the exchange again for easy reference:

Your original accusation, post 146:

(And since you freely admit to engaging in intellectually dishonest behavior like this, spare me the "you've injured me, sir!" routine)

 

OK, I'll cite it again.

Me:

Ontologically, space is the empty volume between things, not counting forces as "things" for the moment. It has no surface.

When speaking of a straight line, I recognize no such rule. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is not along its surface but straight through it from one point to the other.

 

Also an apology is due for claiming that my criticism of the above model is just me making up my own definitions, charging:

You can't make up your own definitions — that IS obtuse. It's beyond idiotic.

Blame that "idiot," Euclid.

 

(So now I am more stupid (beyond) than idiotic. Still nothing personal, I’m sure!)

Edited December 7, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

Ok, how do we know what we know? Some by observation, the a-posteriori, empirical branch of epistemology, and some by reason, the a-priori branch.

MY quote above is based on both. The knowledge that the distance between Earth and Sun does not vary with how we look at it is another. We know this by observation (precise measurements) and by reason.

 

Your reason amounts to "it has to be this way" but lacks any supporting argument other than it doesn't make sense to you. And you should know that that is not a valid argument.

 

 

We do have the observation that the speed of light is constant, and I have commented on that observation recently and need not repeat.

We also have the extremely well documented observation that Earth is nearly spherical. But if we apply the length contraction theory to an extreme frame of reference observing it , it may appear nearly flattened. Can good science sort that out, or must we believe that Earth, after all, may be the latter shape, or that we can not know it's true shape because of the unresolved mystery of our measurements of lightspeed?

 

Good science has sorted that out. Since you admit that you have an appearance of flattening, how do you objectively know that the observation is wrong?

 

To make my "distance between stars" example more specific, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away. It takes 4.3 years for its light to reach us.

If a spaceship were to travel from here to there at near lightspeed, first, it could not travel faster than light, so it would take it over 4.3 years to get there, regardless of the effects of relativity (high speed) causing probable retarding of the aging process in its passengers... and the subjective sense that less than 4.3 years had passed.(Edit: Also, the spaceship clock/calendar would show less time having passed, because the clock would have slowed down.)

 

Secondly, all of the above can not and will not make the distance between here and there shorter. The distances between stars does not change with the speed of travelers between them. The cosmos is real as it is and independent of observation and measurement.

 

That last sentence is a premise, not a conclusion. If you contend that it is a conclusion, what is the premise?

 

This is based on realism, which is based on reason, which is a legitimate way that we know what we know. And length contraction on large scale is still an unverified theory, which is total nonsense as applied to the observed cosmos, the real world, given all the arguments presented yet again above.

 

Which makes this circular reasoning. The only way to be sure that you are right is to do a test. Nature doesn't give a rat's ass what your reasoning tells you. If your premise is wrong, you cannot draw a valid conclusion.

 

 

Follow up on the Swansont’s “intellectually dishonest” accusation; From my post 147:

Me:

 

 

My disagreement with assumptions about straight vs curved lines is based on an honest disagreement with the models developed by non-Euclidean geometry, i.e., their lack of “real world” reference, as I have already explained in detail.

 

No, that's not consistent with what you said. Your notion of a "real world" reference is flawed, because you never actually tie your ideas back to tests that could falsify them. You insist that the real world is a certain way, and then circle around and come to a conclusion that the world is that way. You said When speaking of a straight line, I recognize no such rule. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is not along its surface but straight through it from one point to the other. So you took someone else's argument, with their set of constraints, and changed one of those constraints in order to declare their conclusion wrong and yours correct.

 

By saying "I recognize no such rule" you actually acknowledge that the rule is there, it's just that you have explicitly chosen not to follow it.

 

 

You still owe me a retraction. My disagreement did not constitute “intellectual dishonest.”

Here is the exchange again for easy reference:

Your original accusation, post 146:

 

 

 

Me:

 

 

Also an apology is due for claiming that my criticism of the above model is just me making up my own definitions, charging:

Blame that "idiot," Euclid.

 

Why would anyone blame Euclid? It's non-Euclidean geometry. You have to follow the rules of the non-Euclidean geometry. You can't decide that you don't want to follow one of the rules and just ignore it. (some people call that cheating. Pop ethics quiz: Cheating is considered a) honest or b) dishonest)

 

(So now I am more stupid (beyond) than idiotic. Still nothing personal, I’m sure!)

 

You argument is intellectually dishonest. I made my case for saying why that is so, and did that only after repeated transgressions. It was clearly no accident or mis-statement on your part. I would agree with anyone else coming to such a conclusion after finding an exchange where one fundamentally changes the premises or conditions in order to make a point.

[owl]

"repeated transgressions?"...

Is this science or some new "science" version of the "Inquisition?"

I get that free thinking is not welcome here... even in the Philosophy section.

And... the Earth is not flattened, as SR would have it.

[swansont]

"repeated transgressions?"...

Is this science or some new "science" version of the "Inquisition?"

 

If striving for scientific accuracy is the Inquisition, so be it. You've redefined a bunch of other terminology, so why not this?

 

I get that free thinking is not welcome here... even in the Philosophy section.

 

And one more.

 

And... the Earth is not flattened, as SR would have it.

 

Duly noted. Again.

[owl]

If striving for scientific accuracy is the Inquisition, so be it. You've redefined a bunch of other terminology, so why not this?

 

"So be it"... what? Will you ban me for my (in your judgment) "repeated transgressions?"

I too strive for scientific accuracy, yet we disagree.

"And one more."

Earth's shape does not depend on observation of it. It has its shape all by itself. Same with cosmic distances between bodies.

Now to unfinished business.

 

..And since you freely admit to engaging in intellectually dishonest behavior like this...

'

 

To the point of my demand for a retraction:

I never engaged in "intellectually dishonest behavior", as my review of the exchange just showed. Then to assert that I "freely admitted to engaging" in it... is really over the top for dishonesty and complete distortion on your part.

 

Show me that "freely admitted engagement in dishonesty" or retract your statement.

Seriously.

[tar]

I'd disagree with the bolded part.

 

Don't you think science should be indifferent to consensus?

 

No, I think science IS consensus.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

peer review and independently verifiable/falsifiable, and checked and rechecked and all that...is a group effort

 

and mountains of empirical evidence...that we AGREE tells us something true about the universe

Edited December 8, 2011 by tar

[owl]

My quote of reference below:

We also have the extremely well documented observation that Earth is nearly spherical. But if we apply the length contraction theory to an extreme frame of reference observing it , it may appear nearly flattened. Can good science sort that out, or must we believe that Earth, after all, may be the latter shape, or that we can not know it's true shape because of the unresolved mystery of our measurements of lightspeed?

 

Swansont:

Good science has sorted that out. Since you admit that you have an appearance of flattening, how do you objectively know that the observation is wrong?

 

We also have the extremely well documented observation that Earth is nearly spherical. But if we apply the length contraction theory to an extreme frame of reference observing , it may appear nearly flattened.

 

The above extreme frame, flying by at neary lightspeed, remains hypothetical, meaning that this alternative observation has never been done. The “may appear” acknoweges that IF it were done it MIGHT so appear. Even so, that appearance would be a distortion of the shape that science has come to* know* through a multitude of extremely accurate observations/measurements from frames at rest with Earth.

 

Further we can apply the known astrophysics of how planets form and therefore know the dynamics of how gravity gathers debris from around stars like our sun into nearly spherical bodies. That physics does not come up with severely oblate spheroids as the accurate description of planet formation and the shape of planets so formed.

Is that horse beat to death yet?

 

Me:

The cosmos is real as it is and independent of observation and measurement.

You;

That last sentence is a premise, not a conclusion. If you contend that it is a conclusion, what is the premise?

 

I was not stating a premise as a conclusion. There was no such context of logical framework per se, as you assumed and imposed.

The statement that the cosmos is real and independent of observation is basic realism. An alternative is basic idealism, that cosmos has no reality of its own, but that its existence and properties do depend on observation. (False according to realism.)

 

Me:

And length contraction on large scale is still an unverified theory, which is total nonsense as applied to the observed cosmos, the real world, given all the arguments presented yet again above.

 

You;

Which makes this circular reasoning. The only way to be sure that you are right is to do a test. Nature doesn't give a rat's ass what your reasoning tells you. If your premise is wrong, you cannot draw a valid conclusion.

 

Circular? Length contraction theory as applied above “ is still an* unverified theory*", while the spherical shape of Earth has been “tested” and verified by innumerable observations and measurements.

Earth does not in fact “give a rat’s ass” how we look at it. But a long scientific history of looking at it up close from an at rest frame gives science a certainty about its shape not shared by length contraction theory fanatics, whomever they may be.

 

You:

No, that's not consistent with what you said. Your notion of a "real world" reference is flawed, because you never actually tie your ideas back to tests that could falsify them. You insist that the real world is a certain way, and then circle around and come to a conclusion that the world is that way. You said When speaking of a straight line, I recognize no such rule. The shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is not along its surface but straight through it from one point to the other. So you took someone else's argument, with their set of constraints, and changed one of those constraints in order to declare their conclusion wrong and yours correct.

 

By saying "I recognize no such rule" you actually acknowledge that the rule is there, it's just that you have explicitly chosen not to follow it.

The ontology (admittedly not your strong suit) of realism says that if you posit a model, of curved space for instance, and say that all lines through space must follow that curvature, you have made a model that requires real world verification.

 

I posed a theoretical test of that recently: Two space buoys are at rest with each other. Note, they would be actual objects in space, not virtual points in a mental model already assuming curved space. Say they are in deep space making gravitational influence trivial, just to be clear on the parameters. Fire a laser from one to the other. It will describe a straight line, since it is not projected onto a “curved surface” of a theoretical model of curved space.

 

The latter has the rule upon which you insist , but that does not make it a mandatory rule for all models. The Euclidean model of 3-D space with no curvature is not such a model... not even a “flat shape” model... which is a Euclidean plane, not 3-D space, as I’ve pointed out before.

You:

Why would anyone blame Euclid? It's non-Euclidean geometry. You have to follow the rules of the non-Euclidean geometry. You can't decide that you don't want to follow one of the rules and just ignore it. (some people call that cheating. Pop ethics quiz: Cheating is considered a) honest or b) dishonest)

 

I am arguing *against* the non-Euclidean model! In so doing, I do *not* “ have to follow the rules of the non-Euclidean geometry.”!

Disagreeing with non-Euclidean models of geometry and space cosmology is not “cheating.”!

Science is not about such indoctrination into acceptance of the most popular or contemporary models , as you seem to think.

Your (repeated) use of the phrase “repeated transgressions” is the language of indoctrination, which is why I likened it to an Inquisition... as per into the established dogmas (Ed: deleted quotes), as you present them, of length contraction and curved spacetime.

Late edit:

Again,"Show me that 'freely admitted engagement in dishonesty' or retract your statement.

Seriously."

 

Or, as a moderator with the power of authority to "ban" such idiots (or worse?), are you above such a challenge?

Reminder... you are the one who has made this personal, over and over, like now I am "beyond idiocy", dishonest, and cheating for arguing in favor of Euclidean geometry and cosmology.

Plus you try to impose the superiority of relativity theory (as per length contraction and spacetime curvature... SR and GR sub-theories) over all ontological questions as to what the terms mean in the world of solid objects and the ontology of space between object... subject to change caused by observation.... etc.

Edited December 9, 2011 by owl