Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:29, 23 March 2014

Untitled

History deleted. Since no editors here are interested in including real criticisms of relativity in the encyclopedia (under the “no non-mainstream criticisms allowed” editorial policy,) I will leave the essence of my criticism here on my page, transcribed from my conversation with Modocc on his page but more appropriate here.

You seem to question whether Einstein meant what he said in the quote I cited, i.e., that the statement, “The physical world is real” is “senseless,” and “The natural sciences deal with the 'real', but I am nonetheless not a realist." So you said, “...so it may take more than just this one quote to be sure, and from a policy perspective, its an interpretation that needs to come from a secondary source.” To be sure he meant what he said requires more quotes and an interpretation from a secondary source... as Wiki policy?? Hard to believe! “I am not a realist” requires no “interpretation” or further quotations. And what realism is, which he clearly denies, is well defined: Wiki’s Philosophical Realism, opening statement: “Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our *conceptual schemes*, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.” (my * emphasis.) Also, from Wiki’s Realism (Philosophical): “Philosophical realism: belief that reality exists independently of observers.” From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.” Quoting Godel from “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”: “Following up the consequences one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and the modern idealists, deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception. (p. 202)” This is an argument claiming “unequivocal proof” that, as Einstein believed, there is no objective reality, but rather reality depends on “our special mode of perception." So much for an objectively (nearly) spherical Earth, since according to special relativity it’s diameter gets shorter (in the direction of travel) the faster an approaching observer goes! I am very interested in your reply to all of the above and your perspective on variable lightspeed.

The Philosophy of Science article opens with, ‘The philosophy of science is concerned with all the *assumptions*)...,” (my *) and the Philosophy of Physics subsection opens with, “Philosophy of physics is the study of the fundamental, philosophical questions underlying modern physics...” The “Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity article, subsection, Philosophical Criticisms, opines (though editors are “not allowed opinions,”) “It was characteristic for many philosophical critics that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity, which lead to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter.” (The philosophical “heart of the matter”, realism vs idealism is not allowed.) Nowhere in Wiki’s “coverage” of criticisms of relativity and/or its philosophical *assumptions* is the most basic philosophical challenge, that from realism, allowed. The reason, of course, is that all criticisms of relativity are non-mainstream, so therefore, by Wiki policy, not allowed. The *assumption* that there is no objective reality independent of observation (Einstein’s philosophy) prevails without even allowing a “real" philosophical criticism from realism. I have read many dozens of criticisms of relativity over the years, and all such critics have this one thing in common: They (we) all know that relativity is an ”intellectual property” (not to say ‘dogma’ outright) which allows no criticism whatsoever and calls all critics cranks and crackpots (and worse) having “insufficient knowledge,” etc. This is most obvious in Wiki’s iron-clad policy, which will not even allow the philosophy of realism in its (pretend) “philosohical criticisms” sections. Enough hammering on it for my part. You seem to be the only one here who cares, anyway. Everyone else seems content with the mainstream version of a curved metaphysical entity, "spacetime" (?? with no ontological examination,) and physical objects that shrink, depending on how you look at them!LCcritic (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Provide reliable sources directly supporting your position, or drop it. Paradoctor (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No criticisms of relativity are considered "reliable sources" by Wiki

There is "no hierarchy here," but if Paradoctor's opinion is that my "talk" contributions are disruptive and not constructive, then they are deleted. Here again is my last contribution to the "Criticisms of relativity" talk page, but it is (Wiki forbidden) critical of the opinions of editors who wrote the article, bashing all criticisms and not even including the more contemporary, cogent arguments that relativity denies the "real world" including an Earth which does not change diameters with "our special mode of perception." (Godel):

Paradoctor, It is not my intent to be disruptive but to directly address the title of this article (Criticisms of the theory of relativity) as an editor. You did not address my issue as per title, i.e., that editorial *opinion* here accepts only mainstream perspectives and trashes all actual criticism. I checked all noted sources and all the critics they bashed. There are many more, many of whom are more contemporary in fact than the more "historical" critics, but **no criticisms are considered "reliable sources" because of the very fact that they are critical** (therefore not "mainstream")... which is what the title of the article claims to present, i.e., actual "criticisms of the theory of relativity." Further, it is only your *opinion* that I have misinterpreted the Godel quote. He clearly claimed that the denial of "the objectivity of change" (length contraction is but one example) as per "the modern idealists" is "unequivocally" correct; i.e., that appearances "due to our special mode of perception" are the correct basis for relativity. This agrees with Einstein, his colleague, that, though natural science deals with the real world, "... I am still not a realist." He also said that the statement "The physical world is real" is "meaningless," clearly a statement based on "modern idealism" as the basis for relativity. (See quotes from his letter to Eduard Study in my previous comments above.)LCcritic (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) How is it that the above is inappropriate for a talk page of such a title? It is not. What is inappropriate is the deletion of all such real criticism of other editors' extremely biased opinions! LCcritic (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Where to complain

If you wish to get input from uninvolved editors on my and your behavior, I think the best place to start is Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Case in point. Paradoctor (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no risk that you *might sound* presumptuous. You always sound presumptuous. There is a good reason for that. In my professional opinion, you *are* presumptuous. The history of our "conversation" (your ongoing lecture to me) here (Wiki in general) clearly confirms your superior attitude and consequent condescension... always of course in staunch defense of mainstream SR. You will not allow my editorial contributions. That is not a fair approach to editing an encyclopedia. Your opinion rules over my contributions. (No way to run an encyclopedia!) I ask for a fair hearing on this issue: Paradoctor's presumption (as above) and deletion of my contributions. Or is it just 'learn the rules and protocol or go away.' I suspect the latter. He will 'win' in all courts of protocol here... the bottom line here at Wiki. Is a fair hearing even possible? I doubt it. Relativity rules... each observer will describe a different "world." Where is the science in that? (Just "individual differences" as taught in psych 101.) LCcritic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

LCCritic, the reason that Paradoctor "will not allow your editorial contributions" is very simple: Misplaced Pages does not allow your editorial contributions. As many contributors explained to you many times before in on various talk pages, some of our relevant policies are laid out at wp:FRINGE, wp:NOTFORUM and wp:CONSENSUS. It is indeed "learn the rules and protocol or go away." If you don't, you will probably be made to go away. Please consider this another warning (see ) for disruption by talk page abuse. - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Help! "Badtoken" prompt at Dispute resolution noticeboard/ request

I went to "dispute resolution" as suggested, filled out the boxes, but could not find any reference to the "token" which was "bad"... so, "error," and my request would not post. Typical for me. Just another technicality which I do not savvy. Please help. LCcritic (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I started over and posted a bare minimum version of the request with no "error." LCcritic (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary

No substantive criticisms of relativity are allowed here. None can qualify as "mainstream" (the requirement for cited sources here) because no critic of relativity can be credentialed in relativity's version of physics. (I have called this Wiki's "Catch 22" regarding relativity. No real coverage of the debate over relativity allowed.) There are a multitude of such critics (I will not footnote 18 years of reading) whom Wiki forbids as "reliable sources" simply because they are not "mainstream" enough to be cited as sources here. Just a late night afterthought as I await THE JUDGEMENT, (a little humor) or at least an intelligent discussion of my request from the pool of volunteers in the conflict resolution department. Hopefully someone there will understand the issue. LCcritic (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to include in my summary the primary focus of my (in a nutshell) request of the conflict resolution volunteers. The above is a most basic criticism of Wiki policy, which excludes all serious, substantial criticisms of relativity. My specific request concerned the refusal by editors to allow quotes from Einstein himself clearly stating that he is not a realist and from Godel and others, that relativity is based on idealism. Nor would they allow a comparison of accepted definitions contrasting idealism and realism vis-a-vis the specific issue of "objective science" (as well defined) in contrast to relativity's basis as an observer (frame) dependent (idealistic) philosophy of science. I chose the user name LCcritic because the most obvious example of a well criticised flaw in special relativity theory is found in the very prevalent mainstream "camp" which insists that physical objects (including Earth) and the distances between them vary ("length is not invariant") in dimensions, as per "length contraction," with the velocity and in the direction of travel of all manner of different relativistic frames of reference. To be clear, this is not just my personal point of view but a ubiquitous historical and contemporary criticism of SR, not allowed anywhere in Wiki's coverage of relativity. LCcritic (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

If Modocc or DVdm still wish to engage you on their or your user talk pages, that is their choice. Pester anyone else, you cross the line. This is my final warning to you. Paradoctor (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think my behavior is in conflict with community rules, you can report me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Paradoctor (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Your Talk Page Question

You complain that your criticisms of Special relativity were "shut down". I don't find that comment to be accurate. After discussion on the talk page, which was appropriate, you went to WP:DRN, which is used to request assistance in resolving content disputes. It isn't clear what the content dispute is that you tried to raise. You stated a criticism of relativity, which appears to be that the theory relies on philosophical idealism, but you didn't provide published sources for that argument. Since you didn't provide published sources, and since it wasn't even clear to me what you wanted added to the article, the volunteer moderator had to close the discussion as failed, because it appears that you were trying to insert your own analysis, which is considered original synthesis, a form of original research. At least, that is what I thought you were asking, but it isn't clear. You then went to the Help Desk with a hostile post stating that dispute resolution is a sham. It didn't appear to me that you had made effective use of dispute resolution. Also, when you went to the Help Desk, you were forum shopping, which is disapproved of, by asking a different group of volunteer editors to deal with an issue that you had already not handled well. You neither stated a question about how to edit Misplaced Pages, the primary purpose of the Help Desk, nor clarified your content dispute. As a result, the Help Desk also had to close that section.

If you still think that there is a valid content dispute, please provide draft language that cites one or more published sources. If you think that there has been a conduct dispute, such as POV-pushing or bullying, please go back to an article talk page or a user talk page, or, if you are sure that you have established a conduct dispute, you can use procedures for dealing with a conduct dispute, such as a user conduct RFC or a noticeboard, WP:AN or WP:ANI. However, be aware that complaining about a conduct dispute when you are projecting hostility is likely to boomerang, so use caution there. Also, be aware that continuing to try to resolve a content dispute without making a case that there is a real content dispute is also likely to get an editor labeled as a POV-pusher or even as not here to build the encyclopedia. So: Please think carefully about what you want to add to the encyclopedia and how to go about it, and use judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your most recent talk page post: I still didn't see specific language that you proposed to add to the article. If there is specific language that you want to add to the article, please post the exact language to the article talk page, and I will review it. Please do not insult me, or other editors who are volunteers. I never saw a "content dispute", because I never saw what you thought should be added to the article. It still appears that you want to pose an interesting philosophical question on the talk page. Stop projecting hostility. If you want to add content citing reliable sources, propose the text. If you don't have reliable sources, then Misplaced Pages isn't the place for your questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Length contraction, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Note. This 4th level warning is for this edit on Length contraction. You already had the following warnings for addition of unsourced content:

• 1st level 10 Nov 2013 Tests of special relativity for this edit
• 2nd level 12 Dec 2013 on Philosophy of science for this edit
• 3rd level 12 Dec 2013 on Criticism of the theory of relativity for this edit

- DVdm (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Realism

Please respond here.

It is commonly agreed that relativity is very much a realist theory. For example (with emphasis added):

"It is commonly agreed that neither special relativity theory nor general relativity theory contains any compelling argument against an Einsteinian metaphysical realism. An interpreter of these theories may have philosophical reasons against this epistemology, perhaps in the form form of doubts about the correspondence theory of truth, but on physical grounds alone he can stay with objectivity in the strong sense. On the other hand, the relativity theories distinguish sharply between relative properties, dependent on the reference frame, and absolute ones, independent of it."

LCcritic, I have had a brief look through the many previous discussion you have had on this subject and it would seem that you have a serious misunderstanding of what physics is. Physics attempts to mathematically describe the results of experiments; it cannot be done just by thinking, as you seem to suppose; that is philosopy. When you say things like a 20 foot pole cannot possible ever fit into a 10 foot barn you must understand that it is is experiment that is the final arbiter of such questions, not what you think should be the case. Until you understand what everyone else means by 'physics' you will waste your time arguing with physicists here and getting more and more frustrated. Eventually you will be sanctioned for tendentious editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I have quoted a few of the "commonly agreed" definitions of realism on the LC talk page, i.e., those definitions not invented to serve SR and make "reality" dependent on observation. You continue to insult my intelligence, assuming my ignorance of physics in general and "the reality of length contraction" in particular. I have already told you that I taught university philosophy of science with a focus on the philosophical basis of relativity, specifically SR but also criticizing the lack of required ontology in GR's *assumptions* about the nature of space, time, and "spacetime," i.e., how mass curves "it" (whatever it IS, unspecified) and how "it" guides masses into curved paths. (Another subject.) "The reality of length contraction" section is in fact the appropriate section for a discussion of SR's *philosophy* that "reality" depends on variations in observations, as contrasted with my quoted definitions of realism. Btw, there has never been an "experiment" in which a 20 ft pole fits into a 10 ft barn. And, since velocity is relative, the same "thought experiment" must apply to frames of reference approaching Earth at relativistic speeds, and from all different directions. Do you seriously claim that Earth's diameter would contract to an infinite variety of lengths, in an infinite variety of directions due to observation/measurement from an infinite variety of frame speeds and directions? I am not the one confused here. LCcritic (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry LC but you do seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the subject. I am trying to continue a sensible dialogue with you here but you must have observed that every other editor here disagrees with you, as do all text books on SR. If you will not even admit the possibility that they may be right and you have misunderstood what they are saying then there is no point continuing this discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As on the LC talk page, you continue to stonewall, refusing to address anything I said, yet you claim that you are trying to continue a sensible dialogue with me. You could start by answering my last question, "Do you seriously claim...?" Then you could compare the definitions of realism I quoted with your cited "commonly agreed" definitions which claim that different observations/measurements are all equally valid in describing the "reality" of an object (like the Earth example.) You continue to take legitimate disagreement with claims of shrinking objects (ubiquitous among length contraction critics, not just me) with ignorance. Do you also think that all the critics I cited "have a serious misunderstanding of the subject?" We can take them one at a time if you are actually interested in clarifying your take on the "misunderstanding." But that would require "real" openness to "sensible dialogue" on your part. I am not holding my breath anticipating that. LCcritic (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)PS; Your assertion that "...every other editor here disagrees with" me is false. Shall I quote again those who also know that physical objects do not physically shrink?

Please tell me exactly in real practical terms, not philosophical waffle, what you mean by 'physically shrink' and I can give you a sensible reply. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe LCcritic means "length contraction", such that an object's length depends on relative speed. In other words, with relative acceleration, observed lengths are shorter, thus the dimension of the objects change, i.e. a salt crystal is a perfect cube at rest is its own frame, but it is not in any other frame; it is physically shrunk. -Modocc (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That brings us back to my very first reply to LCcritic's very first legitimate talk page edit, way back in October 2013:

Nowadays (i.e. since a century or so), "physical" and "real" (and even "geometrically") all mean "operationally and reproducibly measurable". Anything beyond that seems to have become what we could call arm-chair philosophy, i.e. wasting one's time on the usage of words. Just like velocity and energy, length is a coordinate dependent property. That does not make it "unphysical" or "unreal" or "merely geometrical". - DVdm (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Full circle. It should have stopped there and then. - DVdm (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is amazing how armchair physicists/philosophers refuse to explain exactly, in down to earth practical terms what they mean by 'physical' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. Chiming in here. In the comoving frame of each fastest cosmic ray), the entire Earth is a speedy thin wafer approximately two and a half centimeters thick, since, L/L0 = sqrt(1-0.9999999999999999999999951^2) = sqrt(9.8e-24) = 3.13e-12. Nevertheless, life, the universe and everything can be miserable at times, and peoples' congruence bias and the repeated denials that an absolute rest state actually exists makes progress worse, because I can very easily show why such a state exists. Anyway, philosophy (the art of deep thought :-)) is not a prerequisite to editing this encyclopedia, thus we are not to engage in original sin wp:syn. --Modocc (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Deep thought is fine for philosophy articles but for physics experiment always trumps thought. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I am replying to your request for clarification on the claim of "real shrinkage" in "real practical terms." So far all "examples" of supposed length contraction are based on thought experiments, since it has never been physically observed. (Delbert Larson; source previously dismissed without reason.) Here is a very practical thought experiment of my own: An alien probe is observed from Earth approaching at .866c, measured to be 10 meters long. A craft is to be sent out to capture it. How long must the cargo bay be to hold it? Answer: At least 20 meters. Why? Because the probe is not "really" 10 meters long. It is really 20 meters long, only **appearing to be contracted to 10 meters** because of its velocity relative to Earth. Of course, when the capture craft pulls alongside the probe, now co-moving with it, its proper length is clearly 20 meters, and will require a bay that long. It would be foolish to claim that the probe is "really" only 10 meters, as originally measured and to send out a craft with a 10 meter bay. OK? LCcritic (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are only repeating your original assertion without any proof. Forgetting relativity for a moment how would you, practically speaking, measure the length of a moving train? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Guys, there is only indirect evidence that lengths differ with frames, it's not a proven fact, that much is said from a skeptic's viewpoint and I hope that such views of skepticism and uncertainty regarding the relativistic paradigm are given sufficient space, but it is impossible for realists to assert from mere authority that differences in lengths cannot exist anymore than I cannot claim that multiverses cannot exist and therefore are not real. In fact, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative of some fantastic claims, such as an imagined god. So reality is a slippery slope as has been pointed out, and into the abyss of unreality some people go all too willingly. The thing is, no matter how entrenched relativity is, it is simply a specific model and an interpretation of measurement, primarily that of the speed of light, and because of this, its speed can (or will... since I have worked out how) be reinterpreted within the context of the classic invariance of distances and simultaneity. In the meantime, LCcritic has to simply adhere to the policies and make improvements to the encyclopedia only when and where possible. -Modocc (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Modocc. Agreed. And of course, note that there's also only indirect evidence that you and I will fall when they drop us from a tower. It's not a proven fact either, but I don't see anyone objecting at Talk:gravitation. - DVdm (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Some facts are more substantiated by evidence than others and the gravitational force will be better explained without relativity. In fact, I used to have frequent nightmares of endless falling until I read Douglas Adams' books and learned that the trick to flying is to not hit the ground, and now when I'm dreaming I find myself flying instead. :-) I've got to go... Modocc (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Skipping the latter poetic/philosophical opinions for the moment... ("Is length contraction as well proven as the effects of gravity?" DVdm seems to think so. Do "multiverses" exist? String/M-theory says so, and textbooks have been written on the physics and cosmology of multiple "universes," now "mainstream physics." Metaphysics, "really"... popular opinion, but "well credentialed" for *theoretical physics/cosmology.* What was that about "proof?" You said: "You are only repeating your original assertion without any proof. Forgetting relativity for a moment how would you, practically speaking, measure the length of a moving train?" First, one needs no more proof that Earth is and remains nearly spherical. That is extremely well established in the whole body of science. The burden of proof for a "pancaked Earth," empirically speaking, is on the mainstream SR "camp" insisting on physical shrinkage of objects. But, to your question: I would attach a measuring tape to the extremes of the train between the caboose and the engine, walking along the top of the train as it moved with all possible stealth, of course. Then I would read the length marker on the tape at the front of the engine. It would vary between hot and cold days, but an average could be found over all the seasons as "the average length of the train." Does that answer your question? Also, flying by and measuring the train at near lightspeed will not change its physical length. 63.155.163.103 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that does not answer my question. Perhaps I should have been more specific. You are not moving with the train (neither is your assistant or any automated measuring equipment), you are standing by the side of the track as the train goes by at speed. How would you measure its length? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to explain the flaw in LC's space probe reasoning, which is the same as the flaw in his proposed method of measuring the train. In both cases his proposal is to define the "real" length of a moving object by making a comparison with the length of a co-moving object. This, of course, is what mainstream science calls the proper length. For example, he says the space probe according to special relativity is only 10 meters long in terms of Earth's inertial rest frame coordinates, but since it is moving at 0.866c we know (according to LC) that it is "really" 20 meters long, which he proposes to confirm by constructing a space barn that is 20 meters long on Earth and then accelerating the barn so that it is co-moving with the probe, and then verifying that they are the same length. On this basis he claims that the probe is "really" 20 meters long. Mainstream science would say this confirms only that the proper length of the probe is 20 meters, not that the length in terms of the Earth's inertial rest frame coordinates is 20 meters. The flaw in LC's reasoning is that, according to special relativity, and speaking in terms of the Earth's inertial rest frame coordinates, the space barn contracts to 10 meters in length when (gently) accelerated to the speed of the probe, so the fact the barn and the probe are found to have the same length does not disprove that they are both 10 meters long in terms of the Earth's inertial rest frame coordinates.

LC's proposed method of measuring the length of the moving train has the same problem, because he wants to compare the train with a co-moving tape measure. The problem, again, is that this would be a valid measure of length (in terms of the Earth's inertial rest frame coordinates) only if the length of the tape measure is unaffected by motion - but of course that would be assuming the very thing we are trying to measure. This is why LC needs to tell us how he defines the word "length" when applied to an object that is moving in terms of the inertial rest frame coordinates of the Earth. If he wants to reserve the term "real length" to refer only to what mainstream science calls "proper length", then he should say so. But this wouldn't change the fact that there is a real physical meaning to the word "length" as it is defined by mainstream science for any given system of inertial coordinates. It is defined as the simultaneous spatial distance between the leading and trailing ends of the object. This of course leads immediately to the question of how inertial coordinate systems, and their associated simultaneity relations, are defined, and what is the physical significance of these relations. But at the rate this discussion is progressing, I doubt it will ever get to that point.EllisMcgraw (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Let us first see if LC can answer my simple question about how to measure the length of a train from the trackside. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Martin, we have a problem with this "dialogue." You refuse to answer my questions/challenges, yet you demand that I answer yours. This, as in the the length contraction subsection "the reality of length contraction" is a discussion of the reality of LC. The common definitions of realism all agree on some version of Wiki's own nutshell version: "Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers.” That is the core of the discussion, the philosophy of realism. Relativity has re-invented realism to be dependent upon observers' frames of reference, the opposite of those definitions I quoted in the LC talk discussion. That is "ground zero" for this discussion. So, how does one measure a moving train if not co-moving with it? *(See below.) Your argument is ultimately that the constant speed of light (used in measuring devices) requires the train to physically shrink, because measurements of the train (using reflected light) will vary as observed from different frames of reference, and that reality changes with changes in measurement, contradicting all definitions of realism I have quoted. If you want to talk about how "real" length contraction is, start there. * As the train passes by, attach your handy tape (same used while on the train) to the front of the engine (on a hook provided for the experiment) and let it reel out until the end of the caboose passes. It will be equipped with a cutting device (also devised for the experiment) which will cut the tape as the caboose passes. The length of the resulting tape will be the actual physical length of the train. No "smoke and mirrors" or reflected light to argue about. Now, will you please reciprocate by answering my challenges, or at least by addressing the philosophical issue here at hand? LCcritic (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How about I do my argument and you do yours.

Perhaps I need to be even more specific. This is not a trick question it is a very simple question that most school children could answer. In the reference frame of the track, how would you measure the speed of a passing train? I tried to make this clear above with, 'You are not moving with the train (neither is your assistant or any automated measuring equipment)'. I guess you would argue that a tape is not automated so let us remove that word. The measuring equipment (automated or not) must not be moving with the train.

If you want me to answer a question of yours please state it below and I will answer it. In the meantime please answer my question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Question from LCcritic for Martin

Regarding your, "How about I do my argument and you do yours." I just 'did mine' again above, and again you ignored it. Here it is again: "Your argument is ultimately *that* the constant speed of light (used in measuring devices) requires the train to physically shrink, because measurements of the train (using reflected light) will vary as observed from different frames of reference, and *that* reality changes with changes in measurement, contradicting all definitions of realism I have quoted. If you want to talk about how "real" length contraction is, start there." Also, "*That* (see reference above) is the core of the discussion, the philosophy of realism." Ps to EllisMcgraw re: "If he wants to reserve the term "real length" to refer only to what mainstream science calls "proper length", then he should say so." I have said so many times. It is really very simple. The actual, physical, "real" length of an object is found by measuring it directly, tape on object, so to speak, at rest with the object, co-moving with it. That eliminates the "observer A sees this; while observer B sees that" factor, each claiming to describe "reality" but ignoring the difference between different *appearances* (for A vs for B) and differences in the object itself. There is no difference according to SR's claims about physical length contraction. that is the issue. BTW, it also applies to distances between objects, like stars. LC also claims that those distances contract as a result of high speed frames of observation. PPs: I know that the Lorentz formula is a useful math too for "transforming" different measurements from different frames back into "real" (proper) length. Please, no more lectures on that. LCcritic (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, I know this section was addressed to MartinHogbin, but since your Postscript referred to me, I hope you don't mind if I reply here. (Feel free to delete my comments if you think they are disruptive.) I agree that you have clearly indicated that you use the word "length" to refer to what is known in the literature as proper length. It's good to understand how we are each defining our terms, so we don't get hung up over differences in terminology. That's why I posted my earlier comments, because I could see that Martin was asking you to tell him how you would measure "length", and you kept telling him, and he kept disallowing your answers because you were describing how to measure proper length, whereas he is really trying to get you to explain how you would measure something else, which goes by the name of "length" in the scientific literature. Rather than play this game of "20 obtuse questions", which is almost never productive, I think it's better to just come right out and explain things, as I did briefly in my previous post. Let me go over it again, in a little more detail.

For any given system of inertial coordinates, x,t, the "length" of an object at a given time t is defined as the quantity L(t) = |x1(t) - x2(t)|, where x1(t) and x2(t) are the space coordinates of the leading and trailing edges of the object (respectively) at the time coordinate t. Now, as you know, this definition of length equals the proper length only if the object is stationary in terms of that coordinate system, so it is not identical to what you (LC) call "length". Nevertheless, it is a very natural and useful quantity. Your position seems to be that anyone who makes use of that particular quantity, and who gives it the name "length", is thereby denying the existence of an objective external world, and is sliding headlong into a solipsistic nightmare. But that is rather silly. Why should assigning the name "length" to that particular numerical quantity for a given system of inertial coordinates imply any rejection of realism? Einstein (for one) would roll over in his grave (if he had one) at that suggestion. He was well known (even notorious) as a staunch defender of the idea that (in his words) "physics is an attempt to grasp reality as something that is considered to be independent of its being observed." Special relativity is certainly completely consistent with complete objective realism.

It might help to point out that the word "observer" is used in the literature on special relativity with a completely different meaning than its meaning in ordinary English usage. In the context of special relativity, the word "observer" is used as shorthand for "system of space and time coordinates in terms of which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good to the first approximation". So when we say an object has one length for one observer and a different length for a different observer - which makes it sound like a subjectivist proposition - it is really not subjectivist at all once you understand what the words "observer" and "length" mean in this context.EllisMcgraw (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note, passing through, so to speak: Martin created this section, I think, as a way to control my replies to fit his agenda. It's ok, I'm a retired psychologist. I invited all editors to express their opinions on this page. You said, "Special relativity is certainly completely consistent with complete objective realism." Certainly? Please define your version of objective realism. Then if you will please explain how the "pancaked Earth" as viewed from relativistic frames is a true description of Earth's shape as determined by all science besides relativity. LCcritic (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no disagreement here about the meaning of objective realism. We disagree only about the meaning of special relativity. You claim that special relativity is inconsistent with objective realism, and the basis for your claim involves what you call the "pancaked Earth". I gather from your comments that your reasoning is as follows: According to special relativity, the space coordinates of the Earth's surface at any time coordinate t depend on the system of spatio-temporal coordinates. As a result, the spatial shape of the Earth at any instant of time in terms of one system of coordinates is spherical, whereas it is ellipsoidal in terms of other systems of coordinates. You believe this is inconsistent with objective realism. But that is false, because all the events at each point on the Earth's surface stand in the same absolute relation to each other, regardless of what system of coordinates we use to describe them. The key, of course, is that different inertial coordinate systems have skewed time coordinates, so "the surface of the Earth at a given time" consists of a different locus of absolute events for different coordinate systems. But the same set of absolute objective events exists, regardless of our choice of coordinates. Objective realism requires an objective external reality, independent of observers, but it does not require that the objects of reality can only be described in terms of a single system of space and time coordinates. We are free to assign space and time coordinates to the objective events of the world arbitrarily, without in any way infringing on objective realism. So your claim that special relativity contradicts objective realism is unfounded.EllisMcgraw (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"I gather from your comments that *your reasoning* is as follows:"... (See above false paraphrase of my reasoning.) No. My reasoning has nothing to do with "the space coordinates of the Earth's surface at any time coordinate t depend(ing) on the system of spatio-temporal coordinates." That is your version, not based on realism but rather on relativity's "spacetime" model of Earth as different frames might see it. Granted, each relativistic frame will describe Earth (and the length of trains) differently. *My reasoning* is that Earth is and remains very close to the form/shape/diameter as it was originally formed (but gradually growing fatter around the equator) by the process of planet formation (and the universal laws of physics, especially gravity) much like all the other planets and stars, i.e., very close to spherical, not dependent on the speed and direction of theoretical passing frames of reference... different observers. (See quoted definitions of realism.) Please do not present my reasoning as based on relativity's observer-dependent model of "reality." Earth was nearly spherical way before the advent of relativity and will remain so long after the reign of relativity as an observer-created version of the existing cosmos, which will always remain quite independent of observation. LCcritic (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, there is no devious mind-control psychology involved here, I just asked you a question that a bunch of smart primary school pupils could answer. As you seem unable to answer this straightforward question I have to consider you singularly unqualified to pontificate about length measurement and I bid you farewell.

EllisMcgraw, I wish you luck. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@EllisMcgraw: When addressing LCcritic, I think you will have to avoid talking in terms of spacetime, coordinates, coordinate systems, loci, events and transformations. Don't forget that LCcritic is a psychologist by training, not a physicist. I think you need a more focussed usage-of-words-approach here, although that too failed to help in the past. So indeed, good luck. - DVdm (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, I think we've found a point of agreement, because you said "Granted, each relativistic frame will describe Earth (and the length of trains) differently." Yes, that is true. So our only remaining disagreement is that you believe such descriptive differences violate objective realism, whereas I (along with everyone else) believe that descriptive differences do not necessarily imply different objective realities. Coordinates are nothing but arbitrary labels for events, so applying different labels to events does not affect the objective reality of those events, nor their relations to each other. If you say a particular fire hydrant is 5 meters east, and I say it is 12 meters south, we are not necessarily contradicting each other, and we are not denying the objective reality of the hydrant or its spatio-temporal relations. Both of our statements may be objectively true, but we are using (implicitly) different systems of reference. Likewise it is objectively true that the planet Earth is moving in infinitely many different directions in terms of infinitely many different frames of reference. Again, these descriptive differences do not conflict with objective realism. Likewise it is objectively true that the Earth's surface (consisting of the locus of events for the particles comprising the surface at a given time coordinate) has infinitely many different spatial shapes in terms of infinitely many different inertial coordinate systems. Again, this variety of possible descriptions is perfectly compatible with objective realism.EllisMcgraw (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to Realism

My beef, and the beef of realism with SR is with those like Martin who insist that "Earth really does shrink..." or that the train really does physically get shorter as observed in relative motion. A pancaked Earth is not "objectively true" but subjectively appearing pancaked, more so the faster an observer/frame (subject) is traveling. Same for distance between stars. SR falsely claims that the faster one travels the shorter the distance traveled, i.e., the distance between stars would contract for high speed travelers. (Granted their clock will slow down.) Btw, the moving train's length can easily be measured from trackside with a light-activated stopwatch which starts when the engine breaks the beam and stops when the caboose passes. If the velocity is known, say in feet per second... simple: How many seconds pass on the watch as the train passes? That times feet per second is the train's length in feet. There is your objective reality, not a physically shrinking train. LCcritic (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Ps: If the trains speed is not known but its proper length is known, and to answer Martin's question, "In the reference frame of the track, how would you measure the speed of a passing train?"... proper length divided by elapsed time while passing = ft/second.

LC, you wrote: "The moving train's length can easily be measured from trackside with a light-activated stopwatch..." Yes! That's an excellent way of determining the length of an object... but it does not agree with the value that is given by a co-moving ruler. Instead, it gives the relativistic contracted length. For example, if you carried out your stopwatch procedure on the space probe of your previous message, and if your stopwatch was at rest in the Earth's frame, you would determine a length of 10 meters for the moving probe, even though the probe's length is 20 meters according to a co-moving ruler. So which of the measurement procedures that you've described (measuring by a co-moving ruler, and measuring with a light-activated stop watch) gives the "true" length of the probe?EllisMcgraw (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The "true length of the probe" was determined in the shop where it was manufactured, according to very specific plans. How it might **appear** as seen from planets and such as it flies by is not its "true" length as built. So apply the Lorentz math and figure out its true, original length. Don't claim that it physically contracted because of your particular frame of reference. LCcritic (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, in your previous message you wrote the following: "The moving train's length can easily be measured from trackside with a light-activated stopwatch which starts when the engine breaks the beam and stops when the caboose passes. If the velocity is known, say in feet per second... simple: How many seconds pass on the watch as the train passes? That times feet per second is the train's length in feet. There is your objective reality..." Are you now retracting that statement?EllisMcgraw (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't know what you mean. I see no contradiction. The probe was built 20 meters long. Earth's measurement of it as 10 meters was based on a distorted image due to high velocity. And the train does not physically shrink due to differences in observational frames. Please explain how you see a contradiction. LCcritic (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The contradiction is that a few hours ago you said the objectively real length of a moving train is equal to the speed of the train multiplied by the time interval (measured by a stopwatch on the track) between when the front and back of the train pass a given point on the track. As you know, applying that procedure to the space probe yields a length of 10 meters. But now you say that the 10 meter length is "based on a distorted image", and does not represent an objectively real length. So you are contradicting your statement from a few hours ago. So, I ask again, are you retracting your earlier claim that your stopwatch method yields the objectively real length? If so, why? What is wrong with the stopwatch method that you described?EllisMcgraw (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back. I'm not aware of any large extended material objects that have been shown to have measurably shrunk and none are listed at length contraction. Therefore, without the simple direct solid empirical evidence, claims that such length contraction will be measured assumes that relativity is correct. LCcritic, I do understand your frustration with the fantastic claims of relativity and the lack of such direct evidence and the desire to insert a modified version of relativity. However, the introduction of relativity's two postulates or assertions requires that non-comoving lengths of trains and probes are always contracted and, of course, these slices of spacetime must coexist with the proper length slices. Thus, it's the existence of Minkowski space and the temporal-spacial relations therein that is, historically, the object of contention. For Einstein, his view that the spacetime of matter exists was reinforced by his solution to the hole argument for which time and space don't exist without matter. Thus, it's a creature of sorts: a conflation of time and space. But it wouldn't be the first time scientists examining the evidence concocted an incorrect creature that gets many minor things right, but other more significant things wrong, but it is an observable model of a reality that is falsifiable. Modocc (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC) For any lurkers that might be watching this page or mine that might be wondering why on earth I'm knocking a very successful century old scientific theory that is mainstream science with humour, see my prediction here and to my talkpage here of an absolute rest state. The CMB rest frame is a candidate for its inertial frame, which I labeled as U, but I'm calling M for now (and I'm still open to other suggested labels). Observations should show that identical clocks at rest in M always have the fastest clock rates possible than those at rest in all other rest frames. Modocc (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

EllisMcgraw, You still misunderstand what I said in each case. I'll sort it out a case at a time. In the case of the probe, it *appeared to be* 10 meters long as it approached Earth at .866c, i.e., its "contracted length." But that obviously was not its actual, physical "proper length," as the capture craft determines as it pulls alongside and measures it to be 20 meters. The probe did not double in length between the two measurements. It was a rigid metal spacecraft (as the train was a solid metal object), and no forces acted the probe to stretch it between measurements. The contracted length was only *apparent*, while the full "proper length" was its "real" length, which did not change after its fabrication, even though it would appear to be shorter to planets it approached at high speed. Same with the train. Say it was built 1000 feet long. It stays 1000 feet long regardless of different ways of measuring it from different frames. That is the difference between "as is" and "as it appears" from high relativistic speed. The different ways of measuring it do not effect its length. LCcritic (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If you managed to figure out a trajectory in which your space probe was inside the 10 meter cargo bay while still moving at 0.866c relative to the capture craft, it would (very briefly) fit. Since we cannot actually make a macroscopic object move at relativistic speeds with current technology, direct experimental evidence is at the atomic and subatomic level. Collisions between heavy ions moving at relativistic speeds are observed to behave as two "pancakes" colliding, even though the ions are roughly spherical when at rest relative to the observer. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, as I see it, your position has changed drastically. Originally you were arguing that special relativity entails the rejection of objective realism, and should be rejected for that reason. But now you are saying special relativity is empirically false. For example, according to special relativity, your stopwatch measurement would yield a length of 10 meters for the probe (and also for the co-moving capture ship), but you claim that it would actually yield a length of 20 meters. If your claim were true, it would certainly falsify special relativity, and the theory would be rejected by one and all. The whole discussion about realism is irrelevant, because you've tacitly admitted that if special relativity were true, it would be perfectly compatible with objectivism realism. Your only complaint is that it is (you think) empirically false.

However, as I'm sure you know, the empirical content of special relativity is simply Lorentz invariance, and this has been the subject of intense experimental tests, and has always been confirmed. Even before 1905 it was known that solid objects, when place into motion, must objectively contract (in terms of the original frame) in the direction of motion. Lorentz showed this in 1904 based on generalizing the Maxwell-Lorentz model of molecular forces. Even in the 1880's Heaviside and Searle showed that the electromagnetic potential of a moving charge contracts into a flattened ellipsoid in the direction of motion. All of this contradicts your claim that length contraction does not exist. More recently, R.P. Robertson wrote a nice explanation of how the combination of Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, and Ives-Stillwell is sufficient to unambiguously confirm Lorentz invariance (to the precision they can measure), including length contraction. Also see the experiments mentioned by Vquakr above. You haven't (as far as I know) offered any evidence or reasoning to the contrary, so I don't think your position is tenable. In any case, since you are basing your argument now on the claim that special relativity is empirically false, the whole discussion of realism was nothing but a red herring.

Ironically, your characterization of real and apparent lengths is just the opposite of what most anti-Einstein people claim. The neo-Lorentzians claim that the "true" lengths are those measured with rulers at rest in the absolute rest frame, and any measurements made with moving rulers are merely apparent, because rulers shrink when in motion. So, for example, the neo-Lorentzian would say that the real length of the moving probe is 10 meters (assuming the Earth's frame is close to the true frame), and it is only apparently 20 meters to a co-moving ruler, because the ruler has shrunk in proportion to the probe. But you claim just the opposite, i.e., that the real length is measured by the co-moving rulers, and the length measured by rulers at rest in the Earth's frame is merely apparent (or else that it is the same as that measured by the moving ruler, contrary to the empirical facts). The neo-Lorentz view has the merit of at least being rationally coherent, but your view seems to be equivalent to saying that every object has a true velocity of zero, because you define true velocity in terms of each object's rest frame. That's just not a very useful way of thinking about things.EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How about a little plain talk about realism, the philosophy that physical objects' intrinsic properties are independent of observation. As we all know, planets and stars form via the force of gravity as nearly spherical. Now, if a traveler approaching Earth at .866c saw/measured Earth to have a diameter of 4000 miles (in the direction of the approach) rather than its proper length of nearly 8000, all scientists besides SR theorists will confirm that the former (4000 mi) was only an appearance due to the traveler's high velocity, not a change in the actual, physical shape of Earth. Same with a solid metal object like a train. There is no physics which could explain an actual physical shrinkage of a train, aside from the thermal effect known to all in thermometers. Are you with me so far? The same holds for the probe. It is built 20 meters long and stays as is. The act of measuring it from Earth as it approaches (opposite of above scenario, but the same principle holds, relative velocity) does not exert any compressive force on the rigid metal probe. Yet it appears to be 10 meters long, because of its .866c velocity. Of course the capture team are not fools, so they sent a craft with a 20 meter cargo bay, even though the probe *appeared to be* only 10 meters from Earth. Is that clear enough? How you measure things (from whatever frame of reference) does not change their intrinsic length or shape, only their appearance. Realism. Very relevant. Btw, you never addressed my comment that Earth was formed nearly spherical before the advent of relativity and will stay about the same long after the philosophy of shrinking objects becomes a footnote in the history of physics. LCcritic (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ps; I am sorry if my compliance with Martin's measurement challenges muddied the waters for you. It remains perfectly clear to me. The train will not shrink as a result of various perspectives from which it is viewed and measured. Either the stopwatch or the applied tape method will give its proper length, which will not physically change as a result of differences in observation. Clear enough? LCcritic (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, The application of extreme force to accelerate subatomic particles and make them *appear* flattened is a whole different arena, open to different interpretations, than physical contraction of macro-scale objects. Delbert Larson, renowned physicist and particle accelerator designer concludes that there is no empirical, experimental evidence for length contraction. LCcritic (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gold nuclei can only be loosely referred to as "subatomic particles." Do you believe that your proposed "20 meter spacecraft" experiment would not involve "extreme force?" Relative to most objects studies in particle physics, they are huge. You are absolutely incorrect though - they do not "appear" flattened; they are flattened. If their contraction was only an illusion, then the results of the collision would be different. You mention that no direct measurement of a relativistically shortened object has occured, but that is because such an experiement is infeasible with current technology (and likely will remain so for a long time to come). We have no direct experimental confirmation of what happens to a 1991 Ford Taurus as it approaches the surface of the sun, but physicists can still make an assessment by applying observations from more practical experiments. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to Clarify

I think it may be worthwhile to start a new section, to hopefully clarify some of the issues that keep re-appearing without getting resolved. Let me comment on your previous message, one sentence at a time (omitting the purely rhetorical ones), to give you an idea of how I'm reading your words:

LC writes: As we all know, planets and stars form via the force of gravity as nearly spherical.

You have to be more careful in your statements. Planets have a spherical shape in terms of inertial coordinate systems in which they are at rest, but need not have a spherical shape in terms of arbitrary coordinate systems. And in fact, they have an ellipsoidal shape in terms of relatively moving inertial coordinate systems. This was explained in detail previously. If you don't understand how this is possible, without violating objective realism, just ask.

LC writes: Now, if a traveler approaching Earth at .866c saw/measured Earth to have a diameter of 4000 miles (in the direction of the approach) rather than its proper length of nearly 8000, all scientists besides SR theorists will confirm that the former (4000 mi) was only an appearance due to the traveler's high velocity, not a change in the actual, physical shape of Earth.

I still see a blatant contradiction here. You say a traveler would measure the Earth to have a length of 4000 miles , but you say he would conclude that this was only an appearance, not its objectively real length. However, you have also said that a measurement of a moving object (with a stopwatch) does represent the objectively real length. When I pointed out this contradiction, you claimed that the traveler would not measure 4000 miles, he would measure 8000 miles. But then it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the traveler measures 4000 miles (assuming you are not using the word "measure" with two different meanings). I can see only two possibilities: Either the traveler would measure 4000 miles with his stopwatch, in which case that is the objectively real length according to your own words, or else the traveler will measure 8000 miles with his stopwatch, in which case special relativity is empirically falsified and the question of realism is moot.

LC writes: There is no physics which could explain an actual physical shrinkage of a train...

That is not true at all. The actual physical shrinkage of a solid object follows directly from the physical laws (e.g., Maxwell's equations) governing the equilibrium configurations of physical objects. This was explained previously. See the references to Heaviside, Searle, Lorentz, etc., all writing before special relativity was even formulated.

LC wrote: The same holds for the probe. It is built 20 meters long and stays as is.

No, we applied a force to accelerate the probe, making a very large change in its state of motion relative to its initial rest frame, and according to the laws of physics (the ones that had already been discovered before relativity was even formulated) the equilibrium configuration of the probe in its new state of motion will be spatially reduced in length (in terms of the inertial coordinates of its original rest frame). This means, for example, that your stopwatch method would yield the contracted length of 10 meters. This follows not just from special relativity, but from the basic laws of physics that had already been discovered prior to special relativity.

LC wrote: The act of measuring it from Earth as it approaches does not exert any compressive force on the rigid metal probe.

Right, measuring the coasting object does not exert any compressive (or accelerative) force.

LC writes: Yet it appears to be 10 meters long, because of its .866c velocity.

You keep saying this, but I don't know what you mean by "appears". I suspect that you don't mean it appears to be 10 meters long using your stopwatch observation. Could you share with me what kind of "appearance" you are referring to with this statement? What kind of measurement or observation do you think makes the object appear to be 10 meters long?

LC writes: Of course the capture team are not fools, so they sent a craft with a 20 meter cargo bay, even though the probe *appeared to be* only 10 meters from Earth.

That reasoning has already been rebutted. If you are trying to prove that all objects don't shrink when set in motion, you obviously can't prove it by setting a capture ship (or ruler) into the same state of motion to compare with a moving object!

LC writes: How you measure things (from whatever frame of reference) does not change their intrinsic length or shape, only their appearance.

That's close to being a true statement, assuming that by "intrinsic" you mean "in terms of the object's rest frame". In other words, the proper length of a solid object in equilibrium is unaffected by the system of coordinates we use to describe the object. Likewise the intrinsic velocity of an object is independent of our frame of reference, assuming we define the intrinsic velocity of an object as the velocity relative to the object's rest frame. This is tautological. We could go even further and say that the intrinsic absolute spacetime relations between the events comprising an object (over time) do not depend on our terms of description. However, the spatial length and shape of an object are different in terms of relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates, because of how space and time intervals are skewed for such systems.

LC writes: I am sorry if my compliance with Martin's measurement challenges muddied the waters for you.

That's okay. In fact, I think your answer to Martin's question (using the stopwatch to measure the length of the passing train) was the most intelligent thing you have said in this discussion (by far). It greatly clarified the discussion, and led quickly to the realization that all your talk about realism, etc., was moot, because your actual claim is that special relativity (and all the rest of physics) is empirically false.

LC writes: Either the stopwatch or the applied tape method will give its proper length, which will not physically change as a result of differences in observation. Clear enough?

That's clear, and it confirms that your criticism of special relativity has nothing to do with realism versus idealism, etc. You simply claim that special relativity - and indeed all the Lorentz-invariant laws of physics - are empirically false. You see, all the laws of physics say that the equilibrium configurations of solid objects spatially contract when accelerated, so a co-moving tape measure will read 20 meters (because it is contracted along with the probe) whereas the stopwatch will indicate the contracted length of 10 meters. You claim that this is empirically false - which is surprising, considering that you also claim no such experiments have ever been done. (Originally it seemed as if you were arguing that the results are empirically unknown, but that you could show that if special relativity is correct then it implies a violation of objective realism, and so it must be wrong. But you abandoned this approach as soon as you began to claim that special relativity is empirically false, which immediately renders moot all your talk about realism, and of course places you squarely at odds with all the empirical evidence for Lorentz invariance of all physical laws.)EllisMcgraw (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Another quick pass through: Your post was quite verbose, I must say, with no understanding at all of the argument from realism against the dependence of the natural world on how it can be observed from all possible individual viewpoints. You didn't even come close to acknowledgement of the fact that Earth does not change with all possible varieties of how to view it. Or that trains don't shrink with differences in how they are measured. Or rods. Or probes. Or the distances between stars. A photon "sees" no distance between stars, so, "for a photon" the cosmos has no space/distance between its objects. (Its All Relative!) How "real" is that in the field the science of astronomy? And the faster a ship can travel between stars, the closer they become to each other. Neat trick. A slow clock moving at high velocity makes stars move closer together. So do you see anything in this picture that is totally absurd and false... as "reality" depends on observers? LCcritic (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You say that EllisMcgraw was verbose, so how about just addressing the final paragraph? In your opinion, is special relativity empirically false? VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Since we all are aware of the mainstream drumbeat that relativity is empirically true, I'll chime in again with some nourishment, just in case that it is very difficult for him or others to deny adherence because LCcritic initially indicated months ago that he didn't want to be labeled a crank, and only wanted the unrealistic bits of relativity to be called apparent! I did too at one time, until I realized that was pointless, yet I maintain that relativity will be falsified. For example, if geocentric doubters had been asked the same question, given the lack of telescopes to discover a discernible parallax to refute them, they may have needed to wait for the empirical evidence that the stars did not orbit us. Thus I'm a scientific realist because, IMHO, extraordinary claims such as all the stars being closer (and further) than they are to us in different frames does require extraordinary proof. Also, because of congruence bias, we need to examine all potential theories too. Thus, I'm a rational heretic, for the more ordinary and valid claims of the paradigm such as E=mc^2 we are aware of the empirical evidence, but any sound alternative model(s) will have considerable overlap with relativity, so the physics that we know to be valid is a no-brainier, and its the things that will distinguish them that matters only, and its not difficult to start down the path of a Galilean model either... for one must first discern that time is absolute and that the universe has an absolute rest state (see my talk page). LCcritic, calling the different non-comoving perspectives apparent is heresy for it denies the existence of the worldlines, worldsheets and world volumes that represent spacetime from which these perspectives are said to originate and you doing so affirms that you do maintain a classical perspective, and all and all, your skepticism is wise given the fact that the algebraic abstractions of SR/GR have literally and mathematically managed to shove Euclid's fifth postulate into an unrealistic rock. Modocc (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, SR's claim that physical objects and the distances between them contract as a result of differences in observational frames is false. About "spatially contract(ing) when accelerated" (in that paragraph): Is Earth "accelerated" to .866c when an approaching frame (ship, cosmic micro-particle, whatever) approaches at .866c, since velocity is relative? What "acceleration" in that case flattens Earth? This is confused relativity at its worst. How about those distances between stars "for" theoretical interstellar travelers. Do observers (all possible frames) "really" re-arrange the cosmos? The answer is clearly "no." That is the criticism of SR from realism. Btw, I did teach university level philosophy of science, and I do know the difference between realism, as I have quoted it from various sources, and SR's re-invention of the term to support its philosophy that reality depends on observation (classical idealism.) LCcritic (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. In your opinion, is special relativity empirically false? VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Modocc, thank you for pointing out that I "only wanted the unrealistic bits of relativity to be called apparent!" Also, good of you to mention that it all started with the claim that parallel lines do intersect. I'm betting that most SR advocates have forgotten the origins of the non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology upon which it is based. Though I was forbidden (by Paradoctor) to mention him again, see Kelley Ross's article at http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm. LCcritic (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Its sometime difficult to assess rhetoric from confusion. In this case, when you said "Do observers (all possible frames) "really" re-arrange the cosmos? The answer is clearly "no."" Relativity agrees with your "no" answer (according to relativity, the observer is simply changing coordinates), so I'm not following this, but perhaps I'm taking it out of the context that you meant. Can you clarify? Each frame has a different skewed map of course that enlightened observers will agree to disagree on, but observers are not the creator of these maps, because they are presumed to exist. In other words, the Earth is said to change length due to a change in perspective, not due to the observer. The flip-side of this is that length changes of accelerated objects are physical, i.e. the energy of accelerator particle collisions. Modocc (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, I tried to re-format my comments and questions above, for easier reading. Hopefully you can provide the requested clarification of your views, and perhaps even comment on which of my statements you disagree with, and why. This would help us make progress. On the other hand, if you prefer not to offer any substantive response to my details comments, that's fine too.EllisMcgraw (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellis, Do you think that Earth physically shrinks, under any circumstance, or not? LCcritic (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Modocc's Question

Is there a limit to how thin our ellipsoid can be? -Modocc (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is: zero. Whether there is a non-zero limit is a separate question, one whose answer would take us too far afield. Hopefully you don't mind that I moved your question to a separate section. I'm trying to collect LCcritic's questions in his own section.EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've no further questions. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic's Questions

LC, since you've chosen not to respond in any meaningful way to my detailed comments and questions regarding your previous statements, and instead you prefer to simply pose questions, starting from scratch, I think it's best to start a new section. I'll do my best to answer.

LC wrote: Ellis, Do you think that Earth physically shrinks, under any circumstance, or not? LCcritic (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Earth undergoes shifting of tectonic plates, ocean tides, the re-shaping effects of the moon on the Earth's crust, the constant accretion of micro-meteors, thermal effects, equatorial bulging due to (very slight) variations in the Earth's rotation rate and precession of the Earth's axis, erosion of mountain ranges, etc. All these things (and more) affect the shape and size of the Earth. The word "shrink" is problematic, since it could mean reduced volume or reduced extent in one or more directions, possibly accompanied by increased extent in other directions, etc. I probably don't know much more about any of these geophysical subjects than you do, but I think it's safe to say that one or more of them involve processes that could be called "shrinking" of the Earth, at least in some directions for some amount of time. So, since it is only necessary to think of one circumstance in which the Earth shrinks in order to answer your question with Yes, the answer to your question is Yes.

Of more relevance to our current discussion, I will also volunteer the fact (even though your question didn't call for it) that the Earth orbits the Sun annually, so it is constantly being influenced by the Sun's gravity to follow a roughly circular path, meaning that at different times of the year it is moving in different directions in terms of the inertial rest frame of the Sun (or better, the center of mass of the solar system). As a result, by applying the basic laws of physics developed in the 1800s, in addition to all the other phenomena affecting the Earth's size and shape, there is also a spatial contraction of the Earth in the direction of its motion in terms of the Sun's inertial rest frame. (We must add the qualifier that according to general relativity there is no global inertial coordinate system, but these remarks remain true in terms of the local inertial coordinate systems covering the Earth's orbit that are stationary in the Sun's frame.)

And of course, all of this is perfectly consistent with objective realism. Next question?EllisMcgraw (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellis, As we all know, the topic of discussion is length contraction *as a claimed relativistic phenomenon*, so your "answer," though technically correct, is an intellectually dishonest obfuscation of the Q&A on that topic. I recently clarified that the claim of a shrinking train is about *relativistic effects*, not about the universally agreed effect of temperature upon objects, such as the thermal effect on mercury in a thermometer. I will therefore rephrase the question: Do you think that *Earth physically shrinks* due to relativistic length contraction, under any circumstance due to differing frames of reference? LCcritic (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Modocc, sorry that you decided to remove your last "running commentary." But of course I do know the difference between a mountain *apparently* rising in your vision as you approach it and a mountain physically rising out of Earth's crust before your eyes. Your final comment was right to your point: "...the issue is really whether or not the Earth is shrunk in other frames." NO. The issue here is "the reality of length contraction,"i.e., whether Earth actually, physically shrinks at all *due to relativistic difference in frames of reference.* Answer: It doesn't. LCcritic (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you describe an experiment that you believe would support your assertion? VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Earth science has become quite precise in its description of Earth's shape: Polar diameter about 7901 miles; equatorial about 7926 miles. The burden of proof that these values *physically* vary with relativistic frames of measurement lies with proponents of SR theory. So far of course applied science has not achieved the velocities required for actual empirical, experimental measurement of earth from relativistic frames to "prove" its theoretical claims. You have it backwards, claiming that it contracts (without experimental evidence) and challenging critics to prove that it doesn't. LCcritic (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Existing experimental data shows length contraction to occur, but you have stated that you find these results unconvincing. Can you describe an experiment (using future but known-physics technology, ie the ability accelerate a 1 kg sphere up to a significant fraction of c), that you believe would empirically show that length contraction does not occur? This is not a challenge for you to prove LC doesn't occur; I am trying to better understand your viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

First, please cite the existing experimental data to which you refer. Results from experiments in which extreme force is applied to subatomic particles (even if they do "flatten," which is disputed, as per Delbert Larson) do not apply to 'macro' objects like Earth. There is no possible physics by which to explain the totally absurd claim that Earth can be physically flattened (in the direction of observer/frame motion) due to relativistic effects. I sincerely hope that this clarifies "my" argument (representing realism.)LCcritic (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this clarifies "my" argument (representing realism.). No, it does not because "physically flattened" is too vague in this context. Ellismcgraw (I think) and I are both unsure about whether you are claiming that there is a plausible (even if infeasible with current technology) experiment that would verify or falsify your claim. That is why I am asking you to describe an experiment that you believe would falsify relativistic length contraction - so I can better understand your viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to "please cite the existing experimental data to which you refer." You did not, yet you ask me to explain an experiment that remains out of reach for science that would falsify length contraction. Don't "thought experiments" count for falsifying, say the absurd claim that "for" a frame approaching Earth at relativistic speed, "Earth *actually does* shrink...?" I do not debate that it might *appear to shrink* to a future ship approaching at a substantial fraction of lightspeed, in the direction of approach and in proportion to the ship's velocity (an infinite variety of possible *apparent shapes* of Earth.) The beef of realism is with the claim of "actual, physical" shrinkage of objects. I don't know how to make that any more clear. LCcritic (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, existing experimental data is limited to objects about the mass of a nucleus since that is the largest object we can currently accelerate to relativistic speeds. You have not provided any justification for your opinion that LC applies to large nuclei but not macroscopic objects. But if this is indeed a realism vs idealism question, then any experiment should show length contraction. That is why I am asking you to describe an experiment that you believe would show a result in conflict with relativity - to clarify whether this is purely a philosophical conflict, or if you think that relativistic length contraction is empirically wrong. Phrases such as "actually does shrink" are so vague that they are meaningless in this conversation, so repeating them in every post does not progress the conversation. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the claim that subatomic particles are flattened at high speeds in accelerators is debatable, and I cited Delbert Larson, who designs them. If they do flatten, it is a completely different situation (extreme force applied to micro-particles) than accelerating large massive bodies (if/when that becomes possible,) and that, in turn, is a completely different situation than the "velocity of Earth" argument relative to a near c approaching frame, be it a cosmic micro-particle or a future ship... wherein the shape of Earth, it is claimed, "actually does shrink." There is nothing at all vague about the latter phrase. It claims that the physical diameter of Earth contracts *as a result of observation* from various high speed frames, approaching from all possible directions at all possible velocities. *See often repeated definitions of realism regarding the intrinsic dimensions of objects being independent of observation. (Indent confusion... so I spaced the next entry down for clarification.)LCcritic (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, the second paragraph of my reply above describes the varying relativistic length contraction of the Earth as it moves around the Sun, in terms of inertial coordinates of the Sun's frame. In terms of these coordinates the Earth has an ellipsoidal shape, contracted in the direction of it's motion. Of course, the speed of the Earth varies between apogee and perigee, and hence the amount of contraction increases and decreases accordingly. Needless to say, rulers co-moving with the Earth will not measure this contraction, because they are contracted in the same proportion, all in terms of the Sun's rest frame. Again, all this is perfectly consistent with objective realism.

Your latest question is actually two distinct questions. First you ask if the Earth "shrinks" (still using the inapt word "shrinks") "due to relativistic length contraction", and then you add "due to differing frames of reference". By this conjunction of two consecutive "due to's" you are conflating two different things, only one of which can correctly be described by the active tense of the word "shrinks" or contracts, as distinct from the passive tense "is contracted". If you understood the objectively realistic phenomena of special relativity you wouldn't make this kind of grammatical mistake. When referring to an object whose state of motion relative to a given frame is changing, then the object contracts (active verb), but when referring to an object whose state of motion is not changing, the object is contracted (passive adjective) in terms of various frames of reference. Again, this is all perfectly consistent with objective realism. Any more questions?EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You labeled this section, LCcritic's questions. PLEASE cease with the verbal smokescreen and just answer my revised question directly: "Do you think that *Earth physically shrinks* due to relativistic length contraction, under any circumstance due to differing frames of reference?"LCcritic (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, I'm sincerely trying to provide clear and correct answers to your questions. It would help me to improve my answers if you would tell me what is wrong with my answers. In my first answer I provided what I think was a clear explanation of the Earth's relativistic contraction in it's orbit around the Sun. In my second answer I tried to be even more clear and complete. Take, for example, just these two sentence from my answer: "In terms of the , the Earth has an ellipsoidal shape, contracted in the direction of it's motion. Of course, the speed of the Earth varies between apogee and perigee, and hence the amount of contraction increases and decreases accordingly." Do you think this is unclear, or irrelevant? In what sense does this qualify as a "smokescreen"?EllisMcgraw (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please cite an experiment in which Earth was measured from the Sun and found to have an "ellipsoidal shape, contracted in the direction of it's motion" due to that motion. The fact that Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid is due to partially to billions of years of spinning on its axis and partially to the pull of gravity from the Sun, elongating its equatorial dimension more than its axis. Please do not pretend that the MM experiment (and its successors) prove your claim. I am also very interested in your source for the claim that, "Of course, the speed of the Earth varies between apogee and perigee, and hence the amount of contraction increases and decreases accordingly." We all know the first part. I refer to the, "and hence..." Meanwhile my revised question remains unanswered. That is why I called your replies intellectually dishonest obfuscation, i.e., a smokescreen. LCcritic (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, I think your dis-satisfaction with my answers is misplaced. Remember, your question to me was "Ellis, do you think the Earth physically shrinks..." I answered quite clearly with detailed explanations of the ways in which I believe the Earth physically contracts, one of which being the relativistic length contraction effect. There has been no obfuscation or smokescreens (on my part). I've been striving earnestly to clarify and disambiguate as much as possible, to hopefully achieve some real communication of ideas.

Now in your latest message you've asked me to describe the empirical support for my beliefs. That's a fair question (albeit one that has already been asked and answered in other sections), but we've been around this barn before. Let me explain again:

If Lorentz invariance were experimentally falsified, then that alone would be sufficient grounds to reject it, and all discussion of whether or not it satisfies objective realism would be moot. But I don't think this is what you are claiming. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) your position is that there have never been experiments sufficiently accurate to either prove or disprove relativistic length contraction, so it is empirically undecided, BUT you believe that relativistic length contraction - if true - would violate objective realism, and therefore must be false - not on the grounds that it has been empirically falsified (yet), but on the rationalistic grounds that it would violate objective realism. Only on this basis do your comments about realism have any relevance.

So, as I understand it, your charter is to explain why, if relativistic length contraction were true, it would violate objective realism. You are claiming a reductio ad absurdum, showing that the propositions of special relativity, if true, lead to absurdity. Fair enough. But to do this you must begin with the propositions of special relativity and show how they lead to absurdity. That's why I've been trying to explain to you, as clearly as I possibly can, exactly what special relativity says (including the careful disambiguation of the word "observer", for example), so you can explain why it violates objective realism. I'm really hoping at some point you will actually provide your argument. That's the whole purpose of this discussion, to learn why you think relativistic length contraction - if true - would violate objective realism. In order for you to make your argument, the empirical basis for special relativity is irrelevant, because you need to explain to us rationally why, if it were true, it would imply a violation of objective realism. That's how a reductio ad absurdum works. If you can do this, please proceed. If you can't, then just say so, and we can all be on our way.EllisMcgraw (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly quoted several sources on the common definitions of realism. They all affirm that the natural world is unaffected by observation (from whatever frame,) contrary to the claim of special relativity. Please address the common definitions of realism regarding SR's claim that "reality" changes with differences in observational frames of reference. Thanks. I do hope you will see fit to answer this request directly. LCcritic (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, there is no dispute about the definition of realism. The dispute here is over your claim that special relativity is incompatible with realism. As I've explained to you repeatedly, special relativity does not claim that "reality changes" due to being described in terms of different coordinate systems. I've been very clear and precise in all my explanations, none of which you've disputed (perhaps because you haven't read any of them?). So, now that we've cleared this up, can we all agree that special relativity is perfectly compatible with objective realism?EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellis, Yes there is a dispute about the definition of realism. PLEASE read (or re-read) my last entry in the "length contraction, talk" page. Let us take Martin Hogbin's assertion as an example (there are many more) of SR's claim that objects physically shrink due to relativistic effects: "Objects, including the Earth, really do shrink..." Yet you say, "...special relativity does not claim that "reality changes" due to being described in terms of different coordinate systems." Now let's take a couple of definitions of realism from my post noted above: From 'Misplaced Pages; Realism': “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers.” From 'The Basics of Philosophy': “Realism, at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an *objective reality, a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes*, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Thus, entities... have an existence *independent of the act of perception* (My * emphasis.) Regarding your "I've been very clear and precise in all my explanations, none of which you've disputed..." I have in fact disputed and refuted your "explanations," but you will not address my criticism, or even my request that you cite sources for your assertions, as for example: "In terms of the , the Earth has an ellipsoidal shape, contracted in the direction of it's motion. Of course, the speed of the Earth varies between apogee and perigee, and hence the amount of contraction increases and decreases accordingly." I explained Earth's shape (a slightly oblate spheroid) according to modern Earth science (directly refuting your claim) and asked for your source for the last phrase. Nada. I am frankly at the end of my patience with your intellectually dishonest obfuscation and stonewalling against all such arguments and challenges as again presented in this reply.LCcritic (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No one disagrees with the definition of realism you've cited. What we're saying is that special relativity is perfectly consistent with that definition. You don't need to keep repeating the definition of realism that everyone already agrees with. What you need to do is explain why special relativity is incompatible with that definition. In your latest message you mention that Martin Hogbin said "Objects, including the Earth, really do shrink...", which is perfectly true (as I've also told you), and you claim that his statement conflicts with my statement that "...special relativity does not claim that "reality changes" due to being described in terms of different coordinate systems." But those two statements do not conflict with each other at all. They are both literally true statements, and both are entirely consistent with objective realism. I say this not because I'm using a different definition of realism than you are, but because I have a different understanding of special relativity than you do. That's why I've tried to explain, as clearly as I can, what special relativity actually entails, because I think you misunderstand it. But you decline to listen to any explanations. Instead, you keep repeating the definition of realism (that no one disagrees with) and raising (unsupported) challenges to the empirical basis of relativity (which is irrelevant for this discussion). I think that's why we haven't made much progress.

You say you have refuted my explanations of special relativity, but that isn't really true. Each time I tell you something about what relativity predicts in some particular circumstance, you ask me to digress into an explanation of the empirical foundation for special relativity. I think that's a worthy subject for your consideration, but for purposes of this discussion it is beside the point, because you are claiming that relativity, if true, would be inconsistent with realism. For this discussion, all that matters is what relativity actually says. If you want to claim that relativity is empirically falsified, that's a completely different discussion, having nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether it is consistent with realism.

For example, in a previous message I said that, according to special relativity, the amount of length contraction of the Earth in the Sun's frame varies with the orbital speed of the Earth. Your only "challenge" to this was to question the empirical basis for that prediction, but as I already explained, for the purposes of this discussion, that is irrelevant. Sure, scientists can (and do!) challenge relativity empirically, and it's conceivable that experimental evidence might someday show that Lorentz invariance fails (earning someone a Nobel prize), but that isn't your purpose here. You are supposedly challenging relativity, not on empirical grounds, but on the grounds that, if it were true, it would conflict with realism. So the only relevant "challenge" to my statement would be for you to claim that I was giving an inaccurate representation of what special relativity says. So I must ask, are you disputing that special relativity predicts a varying length contraction of the Earth in terms of the Sun's rest frame as the Earth's orbital speed varies? Mind you, I'm not asking if you agree with that prediction, I'm just asking if you agree that special relativity predicts it. If you don't agree, then we have a clear disagreement about what special relativity actually says, and we can work toward resolving that disagreement (which has nothing to do with empirical verifications). On the other hand, if you do agree that this is what special relativity predicts, then your task is to explain why it conflicts with realism.EllisMcgraw (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can parallel lines intersect?

Thanks to Modocc for bringing this up, as it relates directly to relativity, based as it is on non-Euclidean geometry as applied to cosmology. (Still hoping for a direct reply to my last question to Ellis in the above section.) Euclid's fifth postulate defined parallel lines. Non-Euclidean theorists redefined parallel lines so that they can intersect in a newly imagined geometry in which there are no straight lines. So, for openers, the shortest distance between two points is now (speaking 'non-Euclidean') no longer a straight line, because an imagined spherical hyperspace has no straight lines on its surface. Examples abound. Lines drawn on the imagined sphere might look straight to sphere-surface dwellers, but they are really curved arcs on the imagined sphere. They forget that we can still poke right through the sphere to connect the points on the surface with a ... straight line! And so many varieties of manifold shapes of space. (No longer just 3-D volume but an entity with variously imaged shapes.) Comments on the transition into non-Euclidean geometry, anyone? It is the basis for relativity, and there are legitimate critics who do not "buy" the variety of shapes of space available... or the "no straight lines" dictum... or the great departure from Euclid's parallel lines, which do not intersect, even in an imagined math infinity applied to a complex convoluted cosmos. But back to the shrinking Earth first, if you please. LCcritic (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Going Nowhere... Fast.

Maybe the most simple and direct definition of realism, from 'Misplaced Pages; Realism': “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers.”

Context; Mcgraw: “Once again, there is no dispute about the definition of realism. The dispute here is over your claim that special relativity is incompatible with realism....special relativity does not claim that "reality changes" due to being described in terms of different coordinate systems." Hogbin: "Objects, including the Earth, really do shrink..."* McGraw: "But those two statements do not conflict with each other at all. They are both literally true statements, and both are entirely consistent with objective realism.”

• See also the ubiquitous examples (promoted by SR) of physically shrinking trains, rods, ladders/poles and distances, i.e., through Earth's atmosphere ("for a muon) and between stars (for future fast interstellar travelers.)

Editors, readers, lurkers, There is a very clear contradiction in the quoted examples above. There is no way to argue with someone in complete denial of the the above contradiction. See also above sections and my last entry in the "length contraction, talk" page for more details and examples. Anyone for explaining how parallel lines intersect, as the point of departure for the non-Euclidean geometry upon which relativity is based?LCcritic (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, since the contradiction between those two statements is clear to you, could you take a minute to explain it? Just to be clear, my understanding of the two statements is as follows: (1) objects really do sometimes physically shrink, and (2) describing things in terms of different coordinate systems doesn't change reality. On the face of it, those two assertions don't seem to be contradictory (and you yourself have asserted the truth of each of those statements in our discussion), so it would be helpful for you to explain the contradiction - if there is one.EllisMcgraw (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgement (since you will not admit the contradiction)... for the general reader, if any: The above post IS the explanation, yet you pretend I did not explain it. I have shown several examples of physical shrinkage 'due to natural causes,' (and why Earth's girth is fatter than its axis, debunking your claim that its shape is a relativistic effect.) No physical shrinkage is due to differences in point of view. It is true that "describing things in terms of different coordinate systems doesn't change reality." Yet the basis of SR is that "reality" depends on observation... a different "reality" from/for each different perspective. (Idealism, not realism.) I hope that my conversation with you is over now. LCcritic (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, we agree that describing an object in terms of different coordinate systems doesn't change the object. But we still disagree (apparently) on whether we can physically affect an object by applying a force and accelerating it to a different state of motion. According to the fundamental (Lorentz invariant) laws of physics, if we slowly accelerate a solid object (remember, acceleration is absolute) it will spatially contract in the direction of motion, in terms of its original rest frame coordinates. In this circumstance, we are not simply describing things in terms of different coordinates, we are applying a physical force to absolutely change the state of motion of the solid object. This does not in any way conflict with the fact that describing objects in terms of different coordinate systems doesn't physically affect those objects. So there is no contradiction. The reason you think there is a contradiction is because you are not distinguishing between (1) absolutely accelerating an object, and (2) describing an object in terms of different coordinate systems. This is actually a common mistake, and an understandable one, because inertial coordinate systems are essentially defined in a way that obscures the difference between those things. But it's essential to clearly comprehend this distinction in order to understand why special relativity is perfectly compatible with objective realism.EllisMcgraw (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellis, your reply showed no sign that you comprehended my agreement with your: "...describing things in terms of different coordinate systems doesn't change reality." My reply again: "Yet the basis of SR is that "reality" depends on observation... a different 'reality' from/for each different perspective. (Idealism, not realism.)" Please address that or cease your pretense to dialogue in good faith. LCcritic (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, you say special relativity implies "reality depends on observation", but remember that we disambiguated the word "observer", explaining that it's used in the context of special relativity simply as shorthand for "system of inertial coordinates", and we've agreed that describing things in different coordinates doesn't "change reality", so your assertion is unfounded. Yes, I understand that you disagree with this, because you think special relativity says that describing things in terms of different coordinates does cause physical changes. In support of this, you quoted someone saying that objects really do physically contract. However, I explained (above) that those are two different statements, both correct according to special relativity, and they are not contradictory. (Physically changing the state of motion of an object by subjecting it to a force is not the same as merely describing it in terms of different coordinate systems.)

Again, none of the propositions of special relativity involve 'observers' in a subjectivist sense. The propositions of special relativity are assertions about the external objective world, in terms of operationally defined standards of measure. So the misconception that special relativity implies subjectivism is simply due to a semantic confusion, and to misunderstandings about what special relativity actually says. Admittedly, we haven't yet explained why the word "length" is typically used in a coordinate-specific sense, but that's a purely semantic point, and you haven't asked about it anyway. Once you understand that, according to special relativity, solid objects really do shrink when slowly accelerated in terms of their initial rest frames, and that the choice of coordinates doesn't affect reality, you know everything necessary to see that relativity is perfectly consistent with objective realism.EllisMcgraw (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeat: See often repeated definitions of realism regarding the intrinsic dimensions of objects being independent of observation. Repeat: See also the ubiquitous examples (promoted by SR) of physically shrinking trains, rods, ladders/poles and distances, i.e., through Earth's atmosphere ("for a muon") and between stars ("for" future fast interstellar travelers.) End of repeat. All these examples of physical shrinkage are claimed by SR to be due to relativistic effects, i.e., differences in frames of reference from which they are measured.

This conversation with you, for my part, is over.LCcritic (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ellis, you have to remember that this person could not even tell me how to measure the length of a passing train. That is always a bad sign. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ps to VQuakr; my last reply to you is now "buried" in our conversation two sections above... in case it was overlooked. Or maybe it satisfied your inquiry about the criticism of SR from realism. (?)

Martin, It is disappointing that you are willing to stoop to lying because my answer was not what you were fishing for. I gave three ways to measure your train: One from on the train with a tape measure, because you didn't specify 'from a non- co-moving frame' the first time. Secondly, from trackside with the same tape hooked to the engine as it passed and cut at the caboose as it passed. Thirdly with a trackside light-activated stopwatch (knowing the proper length from before it started moving and then measuring its velocity with the stopwatch.) You must have been aggravated that I wasn't willing to play your game of different observers measuring it from different frames, as the SR argument goes. See definitions of realism.LCcritic (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, your first two answers suffered from the fact that if we're trying to find out whether putting objects into a state of motion causes them to be contracted we obviously can't use co-moving rulers to measure them. Your third answer was excellent, but unfortunately you declined to explain whether you think that method yields what special relativity calls the length of the object in terms of that coordinate system. It does, but special relativity predicts that applying your method to the space probe would yield 10 meters, whereas you believe it would yield 20 meters. So, either you disagree that special relativity predicts 10 meters by that method (in which case you fundamentally misunderstand special relativity), or you are claiming that special relativity is grossly wrong in its empirical predictions. Could you tell us which of those you believe?EllisMcgraw (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, thanks for note. I did see that you replied above, but Ellis's reply here is asking the same thing as what I was driving at. We still do not understand if you are claiming that there is an experiment that could be done (assuming sufficiently advanced technology), the result of which would contradict the mainstream prediction of relativistic length contraction. VQuakr (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

LC, you say realism requires that the intrinsic dimensions of objects be independent of observation, and I tell you that they are indeed independent of observation according to special relativity, so there is no conflict with realism. In response, you refer me to "the ubiquitous examples of physically shrinking trains, rods, ladders/poles and distances", and you say that "all these examples of physical shrinkage are claimed by SR to be due to relativistic effects, i.e., differences in frames of reference from which they are measured." Well, all the things you mentioned are indeed "relativistic effects", but they are not all due to differences in frames of reference, and they are not all examples of "physical shrinking" in the sense of the objects being physically altered, as I've explained repeatedly. Consider the space probe, 20 meters long in terms of its original rest frame, and then suppose we subject the probe to a force that accelerates it to high speed, and consider it's length in terms of the very same reference frame that we started with. Please note that we are not changing frames, we are changing the state of motion of a physical object by absolutely accelerating it with a force. According to Lorentz invariance of physical laws, the probe is spatially contracted to just 10 meters (as verified by your stopwatch method) in terms of the very same system of coordinates in which it was previously 20 meters long. This shrinking is not an effect of looking at something in two different frames, this is an effect of looking at something in two different states of motion in the same frame. On the other hand, the fact that the distance between two stars is 100 lightyears in terms of the probe's original rest frame inertial coordinates, but is only 50 lightyears in terms of its rest frame inertial coordinates after the acceleration, does not represent any physical change in the state of the stars or their intrinsic relations, it is a descriptive difference. So you see, every one of the ubiquitous examples you cited is perfectly consistent with what I've been telling you, confirming that special relativity is entirely consistent with objective realism.EllisMcgraw (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought experimental falsification of physical length contraction.

VQuakr, Thanks for your reply. My "alien probe" thought experiment clearly falsified SR's claim of physical contraction due to relativistic effects. It's proper length is 20 meters, as built at its home base. It is set on a course to Earth and accelerated to .866c. Ellis claims that the acceleration physically shrinks it to 10 meters, but SR in general claims simply that Earth observers will measure it to be contracted to 10 meters (because of its velocity) without specifying whether this is only apparent or physical contraction. (SR advocates of LC refuse to use the word "apparent.") They send a craft to capture it. They go out, turn around, catch up and pull alongside the probe, now co-moving with it. Now it is measured to be 20 meters again, its proper length. What "force" stretched it back out to 20 meters? Further, it still appears to be only 10 meters from Earth. Which is it (actually, physically); 10 meters or 20 meters? Of course it has remained as built, 20 meters, and will require a cargo bay just over that to capture it. Then when it lands on Earth, of course Earth observers will now see that it is indeed 20 meters, though it (and the cargo bay) would have "measured" 10 meters all the way back home... until it slowed down and landed, which miraculously stretches it back out again to its original (and constant, unchanging) length. Next, "The Shrinking Earth" due to measurement from fast approaching frames. How is Earth accelerated? Oh, yes, it only has high velocity relative to all approaching frames, and we did that already!LCcritic (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

SR predicts that once the craft "pulls alongside" the alien probe by accelerating from 0.866c to 0 relative velocity WRT the probe, the measured length of the probe will increase from 10 to 20 meters. You description above of the probe's behavior is empirically consistent with SR, so it sounds like your objection to SR is due to your lack of understanding of the theory, not due to a philosophical objection related to realism. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Which is it (actually, physically); 10 meters or 20 meters?" The exact same physical measurement device will measure either value, depending on its state of motion in relation to the measured object. If you cannot wrap your head around that, you really should direct your energy elsewhere, like reading the explanation given at ladder paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I will address Paradoctor's insult later. I know the ladder paradox. 'Stuff shrinks with its velocity as measured form various frames.' That is a dictum ignoring the debate, and a personal opinion/conclusion that I am too stupid to understanding, as you assume. (The insult.) ::My objection to SR is not due to my lack of understanding, as you (and all relativity advocates) suppose. I taught university undergrads (a "special studies" curriculum for "the gifted", taught without a Phd) to understand the difference between the intrinsic nature of objects (as they were naturally formed), also the distances between them in the cosmos (as distributed by cosmic forces)... and abstract mathematical models claiming that reality is all about measurement from all possible frames.

There is a clear difference between "the measured length of the probe" with SR insisting that all measurements are "equally valid" but ever changing "realities" of the probe... and the actual physical length of the probe. Realism insists that the physical length of the probe does not change, even while measurements of it from different frames will change. That will not deny any compacting effect on small objects which might eventually be accelerated to near c velocity. But then how can the supposed causes of contraction be reversed and the object returned to "proper length" as it slows down to "at rest" with the same observing frame? The contradictions are obvious. LCcritic (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Relativity predicts that the pole will fit in the barn. There are three possibilities of reacting to this:

1. Agree that, if carried out, the experiment would confirm the prediction.

2. Deny that the pole would fit the barn, but agree that this is what relativity predicts.

3. Deny that the pole would fit the barn, and deny that this is what relativity predicts.

In case 1, there is nothing "apparent" about length contraction.

In case 2, there is nothing "apparent" about length contraction simply because there is no length contraction.

In case 3, there is nothing "apparent" about length contraction because, again, there is no length contraction.

Note that the three cases are mutually exclusive and cover all possibilities, 1 being the negation of 2∧3, and 2 the negation of 3. Please state which of these cases has your support. Paradoctor (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This section was intended for discussion of my thought experiment as a falsification of physical length contraction. Your attempted hijacking and insistence that I now focus on your demands to solve the pole and barn paradox to your satisfaction is not appreciated. Nevertheless, as briefly as I can; a fourth possibility: Realism denies that the (say 20 ft, proper length) pole will fit into the (say 10 ft, proper length) barn but does not deny that the pole might *appear (from the barn) to be only 10 ft as it is approaching the barn at .866c. But a prediction by SR based on the assumption that the pole will be physically contracted to 10 ft will be wrong. It will never fit, regardless of how the approaching pole *appears* from the frame of the barn. No reply to my alien probe challenge?LCcritic (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"focus" The pole and barn paradox is about the consequences of length contraction.

"fourth possibility" There is none. As stated above, the three cases partition the space of all possibilities.

"It will never fit" That rules out case 1.

"SR based on the assumption that the pole will be physically contracted" SR is not based on length contraction. SR is (usually) based on invariance of physical laws across inertial systems in conjunction with observer-independent speed of light. Length contraction is then derived as a consequence of these postulates. Your turn of phrase indicates that you accept the claim that relativity indeed does predict length contraction, which means your money is on case 2.

Since you support the notion that relativity predicts that the pole would fit in the barn, you are forced to admit that, if relativity was "real" (correctly describing "reality"), then so would length contraction be real, not "apparent".

But you reject length contraction on its own. This implies that there is no length contraction, hence there certainly is no "apparent" length contraction.

This leads to the conclusion that your desire to have length contraction described as "apparent" is not supported by your own position on the matter. Paradoctor (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Paradoctor: "'fourth possibility' There is none. As stated above, the three cases partition the space of all possibilities." As a retired psychologist I must call this a form of physics fascism (not to be so specific as a personal diagnosis of OCD.) I ask editors and readers here to consider my "fourth possibility" and tell me whether you agree that there is no fourth possibility. Thanks. LCcritic (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is "fascism", it derives from elementary logic, not from physics. Rules and laws apply even if you're ignorant of them. Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Paradoctor, I'll make it very simple for you. The probe can not be both 10 and 20 meters long at the same time. Yet the retrieval craft, after entering co-moving position with the probe measures it to be 20 meters at the same time that Earth is still measuring it to be 10 meters. If that is too complicated for you, I give up trying to help you understand how realism debunks length contraction. (And no one can "explain" a variously contracting Earth diameter, so that continues to be swept under the rug.) FOCUS: You did not include an option (in your inappropriate insistence on the pole and barn example) in which the pole only appears to be contracted to 10 feet as it approaches the barn at .866c. That is the explanation from realism (and the reason it will never fit), which you flatly deny as a possibility... a symptom of obsessive/compulsive disorder, in my professional opinion. LCcritic (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Ps; that goes for you too, DVdm. Quite dogmatic of you both to insist, "Of course there is no fourth possibility" when I clearly proposed one. But of course it distinguishes between *apparent* length contraction (dis-allowed by SR proponents) and *physical* length contraction... Not allowed in your pseudo-argument.LCcritic (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC) PPs; I said, "But a prediction by SR based on the assumption that the pole will be physically contracted to 10 ft will be wrong." You, Paradoctor chopped it to, "...SR based on the assumption that the pole will be physically contracted," and then disputed the chopped version saying, "SR is not based on length contraction." This is either unethical distortion or extreme lack of reading comprehension. (There may be other possibilities, but the misquote and resulting strawman criticism is obvious.)LCcritic (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"The probe can not be both 10 and 20 meters long at the same time." Same time in which reference frame? As you claim to understand relativity, you must know that "same time" depends on the observer. As a consequence, length as determined by simultaneous spatial distance between points on a body cannot help but be different for different observers. This has physical consequences, namely that the moving pole fits the barn. These consequences are the same for all observers, i. e. they are "real". As "length" determines whether one body can fit inside another, it follows that length contraction is also real.

E. g., putting synchronized clocks together with light curtains and recording devices at both ends of barn, examination of the records will show that the front end of the pole exits the back door at the same point in time the back end the pole enters the front door. Shutting the doors at that time drives that point home more forcefully by containing the debris of the pole inside the barn, another way of demonstrating an observer-independent effect.

This is what relativity predicts, and I don't see you arguing against any derivation of that consequence from relativity's basic postulates. You merely point out the prediction, then claim that this cannot be, and use this to reject relativity. Your "same time" claim is based on an understanding of simultaneity only valid in Newtonian physics, which this discussion is not about. Your claim that the pole "will never fit" is without merit, as you have not given any reason to believe that the pole wouldn't fit.

"I clearly proposed" Franz Reichelt proposed that his contraption would fly. The laws of physics were not impressed, only the lawn. You may want to bone up on basic concepts.

"based on length contraction" A) These short quotes merely serve to provide context, you're the only one who claims not to understand this. Please stay focused, k? B) While it is grammatically correct to say that "based" does not refer to "SR", my quote is semantically entirely appropriate, as you were talking about a "prediction by SR", which precludes introducing additional postulates outside of SR. If you're bent on throwing imputations around, you want to start with the Man in the Mirror.

"I'll make it simple" Even if you have a problem with his theory, you still might profit from Einstein's razor: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." Paradoctor (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

As a retired psychologist... obsessive/compulsive disorder, in my professional opinion. Sorry, but I do not believe you. No intellectually honest, trained psychologist would attempt to make a diagnosis on the sole basis of an online interaction. At this point, it is pretty clear that you are opposed to the theory behind LC because it does not make sense to you. You are free to think whatever you want, but you will find that others are unlikely to find much reason to give your opinion credence. This is because your incredulity does nothing to falsify or support any scientific theory. Best of luck, and I applaud your selection of a career that does not rely on actually understanding the science you contest. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is! - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \mathrm {DVdm} \left(\gamma L\right)}$ There, now you have an argument. Paradoctor (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Upon invitation) Of course there is no fourth possibility. You have to choose between the three given possibilities. Refusing to do so demontrates your ignorance not only of the theory of relativity, but also of—rather elementary—logic. Please don't let that put you off, and try not to take this as an insult again, but psychologists really do not get the proper training in physics, let alone in advanced topics like relativity, even though in this particular case the logic alone is absolutely compelling. Apart from you, I think we all agree on that. - DVdm (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: I taught university undergrads... other editors are assuming you are ignorant of SR because you are not accurately describing its predictions. Your exhibited behavior trumps any teaching experience that you claim. That will not deny any compacting effect on small objects which might eventually be accelerated to near c velocity - Mainstream physics does not ascribe the experimentally observed contraction of atomic nuclei to a "compacting effect" in the sense that if I press on a solid it will compress. High-velocity nuclei interact with one another as pancakes because of length contraction. Realism insists that the physical length of the probe does not change, even while measurements of it from different frames will change. Physicists may not be the most pragmatic of people, but they do recognize that lengths are usually specified without a full description of the coordinate system used. The length of an object neglecting relativistic contraction is referred to by physicists as the proper length. For events such as movement of particles in accelerators or rapidly receding galaxies a precise description of the coordinate system used is necessary; for our day-to-day lives, not so much. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr,If atomic nuclei do contract under an extreme force of acceleration, and a macro-object physically shortens because its atoms are "pancaked," maybe "compacted" is the wrong technical term for the shortened object. I will not quibble with you about the technically correct terminology. I know that "length contracted" is preferred to "shrunken" also. But they both mean physically shortened. Then you say, ' High-velocity nuclei interact with one another as pancakes because of length contraction." So, the topic is about the "reality" (or not) of physical contraction of macro-objects (never empirically observed) and yet you assume the "reality" of length contraction as the cause of such "pancaking." In other words, length contraction is a given, and it explains the phenomenon. That will not work in a seminar presentation on Logic and the Scientific Method. (I taught that too.) Would you please address *my* thought experiment? LCcritic (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Shrunk" means "made smaller". If I shrink a sweater in the dryer, it is smaller in all dimensions, not along one specific axis. This is a not insignificant distinction. You seem to be handwaving away the LC of nuclei by saying they are under "extreme force," implying that they are being contracted by some mechanism other than relativistic LC. What mechanism exactly? You do realize, I would imagine, that SR is based on empirical observation and not a thought experiment. The correct sequence (any physicists online are welcome to correct me here) was: LC is predicted by particle behavior, the SR model including LC is used to predict behavior of colliding nuclei, the experiment is performed and observed to match the model (with many, many surprises along the way - again you are projecting ignorance here by implying that physicists are not delighted when something unexpected happens).

If a new theory is proposed that better fits all experimental observations, then it will become the leading (mainstream) theory. I responded to your spaceship thought experiment above, at 18:55. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, In the above entry to which you refer you said: "You description above of the probe's behavior is empirically consistent with SR, so it sounds like your objection to SR is due to your lack of understanding of the theory, not due to a philosophical objection related to realism." Wrong. Realism (see the several definitions I have quoted) says that the proper length of the probe, as built and measured from at rest with it, is its "real" intrinsic length, which remains independent of different measurements from different frames. SR denies such intrinsic "reality" and insists that its length depends on the frame from which it is measured, which of course varies with the velocity of various frames. You did not address my example. The retrieval craft, after joining the probe, measures it to be 20 meters while Earth is still measuring it to be 10 meters. (Then it "expands" back to 20 meters as it slows down and lands on Earth!) It obviously can not BE both lengths at once, in the "real world." So SR's insistence that measurements from all frames are "equally valid" is false, i.e, physical length contraction is falsified.LCcritic (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Ps; I've made it abundantly clear in all my entries that all claimed cases of contraction are *in the direction of motion* of the measuring frame or object measured. Please, no more obfuscation about shrinking sweaters and such. Btw, realism does not accept physically contracting objects (outside of thermal effects, etc.), so application of force or not is moot. (Example: No force is applied to Earth in the example of claims that its diameter contracts.) Here again is Delbert Larson (accelerator designer) on that point: "Both the classical theories of Lorentz, Larmor, Fitzgerald and Poincare and the more radical special theory of relativity of Einstein incorporate a physical length contraction into their worldview. However, *no direct measurement of length contraction has ever been done."* (My *)LCcritic (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Notice: As one who taught university philosophy of science, I must now remind all readers yet again that mine is an argument on behalf of REALISM against the length contraction part of SR. So when Paradoctor yet again parrots the SR dictum, "...you must know that "same time" depends on the observer... same time in which reference frame?"... he is ignoring the premise of the argument from REALISM, i.e., not addressing the REALISM argument at all. (Like, 'REALITY depends on observers. Get over it.') I have repeatedly quoted the shortest form of REALISM many times; Wiki: “Philosophical REALISM, belief that REALITY EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF OBSERVERS." (my caps.) I said, referring to my example,"The probe can not be both 10 and 20 meters long at the same time." I was referring to the ongoing measurement from Earth's frame remaining 10 meters even while the retrieval craft had joined the probe's frame (now co-moving), measuring it to be 20 meters, again, even while Earth was still measuring it to be 10 meters. That would be that both measurements are occurring at the same time, as Earth is constantly observing the probe "all the way home" as it approaches at .866c even after the retrieval craft has joined the probe's frame and continues to measure its proper length, 20 meters. Btw, by the same argument from REALISM, neither the pole or the barn change from their original (proper) lengths-as-fabricated (barn, 10 ft; pole 20 ft.) AS A RESULT OF BEING OBSERVED FROM VARIOUS FRAMES. That is in fact the "fourth possibility" which is "not allowed" by those who deny REALISM... that the pole ONLY APPEARS 10 FT LONG as it approaches at .866c. Clear enough now? Or is everyone here too brainwashed by idealism (in disguise) to understand my example, as per the title of this section? Ps: Insistence that there is no such "fourth possibility" is a flat denial of another most reasonable possibility, symptomatic of OCD. (Those who are not psychologists should not pretend to correct me. Very specific obsessions count as part of the disorder.)LCcritic (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If your objection to LC is purely philosophical, why have you repeatedly confused the issue by adding claims implying that relativistic LC can be experimentally disproved? Also, re psychology - does that mean that you will stop attempting to correct physicists, then? VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Giggle. Paradoctor (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"mine is an argument on behalf of REALISM" No, it isn't. If it was, you'd have provided a deduction from the tenets of realism to the conclusion that the pole wouldn't fit the barn. You claim that an object can't have different lengths at the same time, completely ignoring the fact that different length measurements for different observers is entirely consistent with realism. Your refusal to address the counterargument pointing to your misunderstanding of simultaneity merely demonstrates your inability to cope with the facts.

"Those who are not psychologists" You are not. Prove it or shut up, this is boring.

Let me restress: As long as you can't show how realism is supposed to prohibit differing length measurements (don't forget that measurements are physical processes, nothing "apparent" here) for different observers, your argumentation amounts to "I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong.". Paradoctor (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Those who are not psychologists" You are not. Prove it or shut up, this is boring." My last illusion that Wiki editors were among the civilized scholars discussing relativity... has just just been corrected. That was EXTREMELY INSULTING. I thought that was not allowed here. My misconception. It won't happen again. More physics fascism; par for the course. That sounded like the juvenile chant, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" I was, as a matter of documented fact, a psychologist. You claim to know better. I eagerly await your "proof" that I am a liar. I will be glad to meet you in civil court on the charge of 'defamation of character.' You will lose, and then, hopefully apologize for your error. Otherwise I reflect you own advice, "Prove it or shut up, this is boring."... a pouting juvenile... just guessing here.LCcritic (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An aside on testing length contraction with macroscopical objects

User_talk:Paradoctor#Hafele-Keating_Reloaded Paradoctor (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Kanitscheider, Bernulf (1988). "Quantum mechanics - Realism at bay?". In Merwe, Alwyn; Selleri, F.; Tarozzi, G. (eds.). Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism: Proceedings of the Conference 'Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism' Urbino, Italy, September 25th - October 3rd, 1985. Springer. p. 63. ISBN 9027726841., Extract of page 63