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 [of the relativity theory, particularly of the general one] [...] 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,[A 32] 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)
Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
If you wish to get input from uninvolved editors on my and your behavior, I think the best place to start is Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Paradoctor ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
This is your last warning. The next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Length contraction, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. -
DVdm (
talk)
20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
[Copied from the Talk:Length contraction page.] Please respond here.
It is commonly agreed that relativity is very much a realist theory. For example (with emphasis added): [1]
"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."
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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 [2] 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)
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 [in the direction of motion], 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 'Wikipedia; 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 [rest frame of the Sun], 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)
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)
Maybe the most simple and direct definition of realism, from 'Wikipedia; 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.”
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User_talk:Paradoctor#Hafele-Keating_Reloaded Paradoctor ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits to
User talk:LCcritic could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on
legal threats and
civility. Users who make such threats may be
blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for
dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by
reliable independent sources and focusing especially on
verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. I realize you are probably being facetious
here, but please don't.
VQuakr (
talk)
22:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I return to this conversation with Paradoctor (not an "arbitrary break") and to my rebuttal which he has ignored for lack of cogent argument, I must presume: I said, "The probe can not be both 10 and 20 meters long at the same time." Paradoctor said, “...Same time in which reference frame? As you claim to understand relativity, you must know that "same time" depends on the observer." Wiki: “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers." Further explanation of my “at the same time” above: “I was referring to the ongoing measurement (of the probe) 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... all the way home.” The probe in my example is indeed being measured from Earth to be 10 meters and from the retrieval craft to be 20 meters at the same time. But Paradoctor refuses to address this very clear clarification of "at the same time," obsessively citing the relativity dictum of the relativity of simultaneity... which clearly does not apply in the above situation. (Also see my example of "at the same time" in the 'Relativity of simultaneity" talk page... Sorry, I still can't do links.) LCcritic ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
LCcritic, the 'arbitrary break' that Paradoctor inserted is just a heading inserted into long threads to make finding your way and editing easier. It is hard work scolling through pages of text to find the place where you wish to comment. It is much easier to find your place if there are section headings a regular intervals. Paradoctor was just being helpful so assume some good faith and try not to SHOUT at everyone. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"The probe [...] is [...] being measured from Earth to be 10 meters and from the retrieval craft to be 20 meters at the same time." I shouldn't have given the benefit of doubt to your claim that you understand relativity. That you answer my question by restating a meaningless statement shows that you haven't understood what I'm getting at. Let's try to rectify that. Time is measured by synchronized clocks at rest relative to the (inertial) observer in opportune locations. We measure distances between the clocks by resting rods. A sufficiently extended collection of clocks and rods yields a coordinate system. The coordinates thus established are physical coordinates, nothing apparent here, and they apply just as well in Newtonian physics. From the postulates of SR we then derive the Lorentz transformation to describe of the relationship between these frames. This is not an arbitrary choice, but the logical consequence of the way the coordinates established, in conjunction with the relativistic postulates. The Lorentz transformation now tells us two things relevant to this discussion:
These two effects preclude any notion of "same time" / "simultaneous" across different observers. This is relevant to length contraction, as length is the simultaneous determination of the positions of start and end of a measuring rod by finding the two clocks next to start and end of the measuring rod at some given time t. Since these two events are not simultaneous for the moving observer, they do not constitute a length measurement. As it is not possible to give meaning to the term "length measured at the same time by different observers", your objection is meaningless, and does not support your claim that SR is incompatible with realism. BTW, the only non-classical assumption going into this result is the constancy of the speed of light, which has solid observational support. Paradoctor ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Enough 'word salad' avoiding basic realism already! SR insists that all frames of reference yield equally valid measurements ("no preferred frame.") There are consequences, as follows: Earth morphs with all approaching observers, differently for each. (No "real unchanging*" Earth, *granting trivial changes due to natural causes over billions of years.) A 20 ft pole will fit into a 10 ft barn... "as observed from a non-co-moving frame of relative velocity .866c." There is no such thing as two events happening at the same time. It all depends on who sees what, when from different frames. Reality depends on the observer. There is no reality independent of the observer. Idealism trumps realism. (Einstein: "I am still not a realist." Also, "'The physical world is real.' The above statement seems intrinsically senseless...") That said, still no rebuttal to my probe example, clearly falsifying length contraction, but only denial of the two ongoing measurements happening at the same time, the denial of which i debunked.) I also invited reference to my example in the "relativity of simultaneity, talk" page, showing that different observers seeing events at different times does not make them happen at different times. My light beams struck their targets at the same time, and different frames of reference did not alter that actual, real simultaneity. How about editors address these issues for a change. LCcritic ( talk) 18:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Thus the length of the rod as measured in the frame of reference S with respect to which the rod is moving is shorter than the length as measured from a frame of reference S' relative to which the rod is stationary. A rod will be observed to have its maximum length when it is stationary in a frame of reference. The length so-measured, l0 is known as its proper length.
This phenomenon is known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. It is not the consequence of some force ‘squeezing’ the rod, but it is a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects. Note however that someone who actually looks at this rod as it passes by will not see a shorter rod. If the time that is required for the light from each point on the rod to reach the observer’s eye is taken into account, the overall effect is that of making the rod appear as if it is rotated in space."
(Overlapping edit conflict) Editors, pleasenotice the subsection title above and address it. Realism is about the world as it is independent of observational frames of reference.More replies about 'this frame's measurement of an object (or distance) vs 'that frame's measurement of the same object (or distance) does not address the issue of realism. And realism is not misapplying an "apples vs oranges" misconception. The probe remains, as built, 20 meters long (it remains that "apple") even while it appears to be 10 meters as measured from Earth as it approaches (appearing as an "orange.") Then it is supposed to magically grow back to 20 meters as it slows down and lands on Earth... changing from the contracted "orange" back into the expanded "apple!") The insistence that length contraction is "a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects," is false. Realism challenges all physicists to admit that while contraction of objects might eventually become an "observable effect," (no evidence for that yet), that does not logically require that the object itself physically contract. (Same of course for distances between objects, say stars for instance.) The subject of realism (the world as it intrinsically is) vs idealism (that reality depends on how it is observed) is part of the body of knowledge called the philosophy of science. A philosopher of science is an expert in this field, while a relativity physicist is an expert in what they are told in relativity texts in the course of getting their credentials. So they cite the acceptable mainstream texts, as DVdm does above, and claim that length contraction "... is not the consequence of some force ‘squeezing’ the rod, but it is a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects." The possibility of observable effects is not denied by the realist. The claim that it is "a real physical phenomenon" (a physical shortening of the object) is in fact denied by realism. The philosopher of science is the expert in such a case vis-a-vis the realism vs idealism issue as applied to length contraction. The physicist is the "amateur" on that subject, as in evidence above. DVdm and Paradoctor and all 'mainstreamers' here are still in denial of the fact that length contraction as an observer-dependent phenomenon is based on idealism, which denies (as Einstein did) that there is a real world independent of observation. Anyone here able to address this issue? Ps; I guess my logical argument challenge scared everyone away, but here it is again: Make a logical argument from "The speed of light is constant"... to "... Therefore physical objects actually contract in length." Btw, how is it again that a rod (or probe) "really, physically contracts" without experiencing any force to "squeeze" the space between of its constituent parts or its atoms? (Or is it just apparent, not physical contraction?) Now apply that to Earth's diameter... same principle. LCcritic ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
At your request, a detailed logical argument was provided. Your reaction was to repeat your claims and the misbegotten non-arguments you try to support them with. Anyone willing and capable of rational discussion would have read and analyzed the argument, and then provided a counterargument listing any perceived logical flaws in it. Not you. Your documented behavior in the past months puts you among those who "dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference". As a general rule, the Wikipedia community is pretty tolerant. You have discovered the limit.
For this reason, I'm telling you to stop pushing your views. This discussion ends here. If I see further edits promoting your views, I will ask for your account to be blocked. Paradoctor ( talk) 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
==Ignoring the Rules==
Seems this was ignored. I’ll try again. I was asking for discussion of the "Ignore All Rules" allowance which might improve fair coverage of criticisms of relativity (length contraction in this specific case.)As I told VQuakr, "My 'main goal' is to bring fair coverage of criticisms of relativity into the text of Wikipedia." In that spirit, do editors here seriously and honestly contend that none of the critical sources I cited above are valid? In that case, is it literally true that any discussion of whose credentials are valid must be restricted to the relativity community's point of view? Many of the critics I cited are criticizing the idealism inherent in frame-of-reference-differences as reflecting actual physical differences in "the world." That makes the implicit rule, 'No Realists Allowed A Voice' (or "no criticism of relativity allowed') a literally enforced Wikipedia policy. There are many such voices/critics, some more credible than others, but so far, literally none are allowed in the text of "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" or that 'talk' page. The answer to all of the above continues to be simply stonewalling, i.e., no real interest in improving the encyclopedia to include even basic, very sound criticism. LCcritic ( talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Ps; I read the "Noose" article linked above. Apparently Michio Kaku was wrong, or at least the constancy and limit of the speed limit of light remains verified... (Therefore physical objects shrink?... How does that argument go again?) Anyway, relativity slipped out of the noose on that one. That's one down. Is it dozens, hundreds, or thousands to go? Of course that depends on "credentialing process" in which only those who agree with relativity can be so credentialed. LCcritic ( talk) 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
More of the same. I went looking for where and how to complain about your abuse and found the process too complicated to be worth the trouble. So I just ask other editors here to weigh in on Paradoctor's conduct. He remains blatantly personally abusive. If it is not considered in violation of protocol for user conduct, then then there is no such meaningful protocol here. LCcritic ( talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
So, can parallel lines intersect or not? If so, how. This was the point of departure for non-Euclidean geometry, the basis of relativity, so surely its advocates can explain it. Then, the most basic question pertaining to length contraction: Does "reality" (you know, includ ing all physical objects and the distances between them) change form or distribution in space just because relativity theorists decide to represent it ('the world') from a different coordinate system? Ps; my new section title was deleted. The is not part of the previous section. LCcritic ( talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In the concluding comments of his lecture, Riemann apologized for presenting such an apparently useless topic, but, he said, the value of such an investigation perhaps lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas should the time ever come when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. These highly prophetic words were actually realized some fifty years after his death, through Einstein's general theory of relativity.
27.2. Let us interpret the Riemannian non-Euclidean plane as the surface of a given sphere S, a "point" of the Riemannian plane as a point on S, and a "line" of the Riemannian plane as a great circle on S. Show that Postulates 1' , 2' , 5' of the lecture text, along with Euclid's Postulates 3 and 4, hold in this model, thus establishing the (relative) consistency of the Riemannian non-Euclidean geometry.
1'. Two distinct points determine at least one straight line.
2'. A straight line is boundless.
5'. Any two straight lines in a plane intersect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shapes+of+space,+non-euclidean&client=firefox-a&hs=hdL&rls
"Who told you that axioms should be true or false?" Nobody 'told me.' I am not a parrot or a robot or a trained animal. It is in fact either true or false that parallel lines on a plane can intersect. (I taught logic... an 'expert,' so to speak. The dean of philosophy at the university where I taught thought so, anyway.) If false, relativity is based only on mental models of some variety without referents in the empirically observed world, much less ontological definition of "entities.". I know that there is no chance of that being a part of Wiki's "coverage" of "Criticisms of the theory of relativity." Thanks for the last word. That must mean I'm right!... Or at least that there is no logical argument to support "the basics" of non-Euclidean geometry, the basis of relativity. LCcritic ( talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So, regarding my question/appeal: "Does anyone here have both the intelligence and civility** to talk respectfully** about the transition to non-Euclidean geometry which became the basis for relativity?" (see section title.)... the answer is clearly, no. Instead the dynamic duo for personal harassment of relativity critics, like Beavis and Butthead*, crack stupid jokes and feed each other's game of 'bash LCcritic.' You are both dis-invited from posting on this page. I can't enforce it but I can do my best to fill your talk pages with equally inane BS. LCcritic ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC) ["Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."]
Aside from the ongoing personal harassment campaign by Beavis and Butthead, is anyone here interested in a discussion of the non-Euclidean roots of relativity, leading to citation of published criticism of the geometric principles upon which relativity is based in the "Criticisms" article?... Or published debunking of "the philosophy of shrinking physical objects" and the "frame-dependence of the distances between stars?" My intent is still to bring legitimate criticism of relativity* into Wikipedia's articles, regardless of what the bashers would have readers believe. (*In spite of present policy that there is no legitimate criticism of relativity. LCcritic ( talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I dug this out of obscurity under a critic's section, "Drawing the line." I edited out the "Noose" reference, which failed to "hang" relativity and another inconclusive "dialogue":
This encyclopedia should present a fair account of every field of science, including reasonable published criticisms of relativity. (Not my published criticisms.) Here are a few such published criticisms. There are dozens more and many critical websites:
G. O. Mueller The German Research Project “95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-- 2003): "We document the publications and we try to inform the public about the existence of the strong and uninterrupted tradition of criticism”
From: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html : “For all their apparent predictive power, Einstein's relativity theories are deeply flawed, as the critical papers in this first of two Infinite Energy special "Einstein Reconsidered" issues will demonstrate formally. Einstein criticism is, of course, not new. (We are obviously not referring to Nazi-inspired, anti-Semitic tracts against relativity that were published in the 1920s, which disparaged his relativity theory as "Jewish science" or worse.) There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein's work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics,1 Physics Essays,2 Apeiron,3 Journal of New Energy,4 etc., as well as books by thoughtful critics: Harold Aspden,5 Petr Beckmann,6 Peter and Neal Graneau,7 Ronald Hatch,8 Herbert Ives,9 Thomas Phipps, Jr.,10 and Franco Selleri,11 to name but a few.' There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA),12 which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable "scientific saints," such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking. “
http://www.theoryrelativity.com/ : “The opponents of physical relativism cannot reconcile themselves with the fact that the sizes of physical quantities inherent in an object depend not only on composition, structure and physical state of this object, but also on the velocity of the given object and the measuring devices relative to each other. It is a widely spread opinion that physical relativism is only denied by the critics of the theory of relativity. In reality, attempts at derelativisation of the special theory of relativity, including rather successful ones, have been made not only by critics, but by supporters of the special theory of relativity as well.”
http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/CRITICISM_OF_RELATIVITY
Einstein’s Jury (Description): “The book examines Einstein's theory of general relativity through the eyes of astronomers, many of whom were not convinced of the legitimacy of Einstein's startling breakthrough.” See specifically Lewis and Tolman denying length contraction claims as “...not physical changes in the body itself." (pgs 36 & 37.)
Henry Lindler: “Albert Einstein was a subjective mathematical idealist.”'
Delbert larson: “However, no direct measurement of length contraction has ever been done.”
Kurt Godel: [1949a] “A remark on the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy” (Same relationship noted by critics from philosophical realism.)
There are dozens of additional *legitimate* (*edited in) publications and websites criticizing SR. To claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest! 75.170.5.220 ( talk) 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Modocc, seems as the sweeping dismissal of all critical references in the above section has verified that no criticism of relativity based on any version of realism will stand to be included in the "Criticisms..." article. (See my appeal for policy change and replies at the village pump (Wiki's water cooler?) So, if we are to continue discussion of length contraction and time dilation, a new section was required. As I said, I have no problem with the tons of evidence that clocks slow down as they are accelerated to higher velocities than their control "stay at home' mates... or in stronger gravitational fields. No doubt that the same thing would happen to the physical process of aging in the interstellar travelers. So relativity has thrown out any/all standardization of time. "It's all relative." But it still takes "a year" (now precisely standardized) for an Earth orbit of the Sun, and that happens over 2.5 million times as the light from Andromeda travels to Earth. Just a "reality check" on what a standard year is. Then there is the math trick whereby the faster you travel the shorter the distance traveled! So the 2.5 million light years (distance!) to Andromeda is "shortened" to less than 1/90,000th of that "for the travelers." This brings us back to the criticism of SR from realism. Obviously the "real" distance to Andromeda does not "contract,"no more than the "real" (physical) length of Earth's diameter changes with every possible approaching/passing frame of reference which might measure it. This kind of criticism from realism, by many published authors is not allowed in Wikipedia. This is unreasonable censorship by "mainstream" relativity, defending the realm against all such critics. My appeal at "The Pump" was an appeal to change that policy. It too has failed. LCcritic ( talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Modocc and Paradoctor, the last time you went at it like this was on Modocc's talk page (now archived.) The above belongs there too. (Then I will delete the above exchange.) Neither of you addressed my challenge [...]: [SR claims that the (overworked) 20 foot ladder will fit into the 10 foot barn if it is observed/measured approaching the barn at .866c. The same is claimed for Earth's diameter. It IS only 4000 miles in length when approached at .866c; so they claim. Deal with it.] Velocity is relative, so if an observer/frame approaches Earth, as above, Earth "approaches" that frame at the same velocity, so the claims of length contraction must apply. Yet no one claims that Earth is then "accelerated," causing its diameter to contract in the direction of its motion... same direction as the approaching "observer." Again, deal with it or go play in your own sandboxes. LCcritic ( talk) 18:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
By way of review or summary of claims and criticisms of length contraction; True of false: 1. Different observations/measurements from different frames of reference can not change physical objects or distances. (Argument from realism... See contrary specific example, #7 below.) 2. The faster you go the shorter the distance traveled. (Ref: To Andromeda in 28 years when the distance is contracted as time is dilated. "Ask The Physicist," Dave Goldberg.) 3. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. (Euclidean geometry.) 4. Parallel lines can intersect. (Roots of relativity in non-Euclidean geometry.) 5. There is no such thing as two events happening at the same time, because simultaneity depends on 'who sees what, when,' and that changes with frames of reference. (See my argument to the contrary in the "Relativity of Simultaneity" talk page.) 6. The 'world' exists and has intrinsic properties (including dimensions and distances between objects) independent of how they are observed and measured. (Realism, before relativity re-invented it to suit the frame-dependent version of 'reality.') Finally, my favorite example for debunking the absurdity: 7. The physical "real" length of Earth's diameter depends on the frame of reference of the observer. LCcritic ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please show in the case of each source cited how each is determined to be unreliable. No, I do not accept your attempt to shift the burden of defending your sources. In any case, if after all this time you do not understand why a wikia source fails WP:RS then you are too incompetent to edit here. If you review your sources and still think you have one that meets the policy requirements, present that single, best one and I am willing to have a look to help explain the policy to you. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before starting an arbitration request. VQuakr ( talk) 19:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice tag team stonewall maneuver by two hard core defenders of mainstream orthodoxy. Perfect dodge of quoted policy: "Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. You refused the challenge to show how all sources I cited fail as "significant alternatives." Then to that "single best source" you promised to address; Einstein: "I concede that the natural sciences concern the 'real,' but I am still not a realist." Nada! Does your "offer still stand?" Those I cited are realists, most qualified as "significant alternative" critics of relativity, the "father" of which was, in his own words "not a realist." No comment on the obvious lead article exception to the 'no editorial synthesis or opinions' policy cited. No rebuttal to my reply to your accusation that I am incompetent. My intent to improve Wikipedia by allowing such legitimate criticism as cited is brushed aside by you hardcore orthodoxy defenders, claiming to have debunked criticism... presumably based on a consensus among other like minded defenders of orthodoxy, all of whom agree that there is no legitimate criticism of relativity. (Hmmm. What is wrong with this picture?) See again quoted lead article statement that no such criticism is "accepted by the scientific community." Compare with "neutral point of view" policy. Compare with my comments in the section above on the "Ignore All Rules" allowance for improving the encyclopedia. Whether one ignores them or follows them (contradictory as they are,) there is still no criticism of relativity allowed here. LCcritic ( talk) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr,..."That quote does not mention relativity." Really?! That is your basis for rejecting it as a source? It clearly establishes that relativity is based on rejection of realism (see definitions often quoted), which makes criticism by realists spot-on relevant. Yet the "Criticisms..." article synthesizes and generalizes and then states the opinion that no criticisms of relativity are "accepted by the scientific community." How is that not synthesis and opinion, defending the mainstream by excluding all criticism of it? My "rant?" Could that possibly be just your opinion which conveniently ignores all points I made, since you can not refute them? But DVdm gets the prize for the most personally abusive editor here in my experience (maybe tied with Paradoctor) with the brass to cite me for civility protocol violation. I leave their long records of personally abusive attacks against me to other readers. Citing each case would fill a very long section here, without relevance to the subject. LCcritic ( talk) 18:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Restored. See latest conversation below discussing "original" length contraction thought experiments. Lots of "slack" for "original" discussion there and on other talk pages. DVdm (or whoever) has no right to single this section out for deletion to "hidden" based on an *opinion* that it is forbidden "original research."
First, I am totally tired of dealing with all the above stonewalling and extreme lack of civility by a gang of proven relativity-critic-bashers, 'defending the mainstream realm,' as it were. My examples of relativity's denial of realism and criticisms from realism have all been excluded because of the prevailing opinion among editors that no criticism of relativity is legitimate. This is all very obvious to any fair-minded reader, not of course including any of the above with extremely prejudiced opinions against any such criticism. The long history of personal abuse against me is also obvious... again, to any fair-minded reader. But I am sure that the worst offenders can find 'policies and guidelines' to hide behind in any specific case I cite and of course use clever smokescreens for all nasty name-calling (like calling me a liar without actually saying the words, "You are a liar," or characterizing me as a variety of famous villains and fools with links to individual cases.) I refuse to further defend myself against this harassment. I also refuse to continue the argument from realism on the terms or in the "playing field" dictated by the above gang.
That said, this section will go back to the heart of the matter (see section title) as covered in Wikipedia's Length Contraction article [...]: [In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that length contraction is "real" according to Lorentz, while it is "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein. Einstein replied: "The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.] The section goes on to quote Einstein's thought experiment starting with, "Let A'B' and A"B" be the endpoints of two rods of same proper length." As in the first quote* he goes on to argue that different frames of reference which see/measure the two rods to be different lengths changes the "reality" that they started with, i.e., having the "same proper length." *As above, length contraction "doesn't really exist... for a co-moving observer," but it "really exists...(for) a non-comoving observer." Obviously the "reality" of length contraction depends on how an object appears to the observer. So there is no "real length" independent of observers... though the rods' "proper lengths" were the same before the tricky shuffle which makes them appear different lengths to different observers. Yet he denies that length contraction is only due to appearance in reply to Varicak. Apparently Einstein's status as a revered genius makes him exempt from such obvious and blatant self contradiction. The result is that his quotes, contradicting himself stand as the definitive statement in Wikipedia's subsection on "the reality of length contraction." LCcritic ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, the focus of this section is on Einstein's reply to Varicak's assertion that length contraction was "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein. Yet Einstein's reply clearly said that the "reality" of length contraction depends how objects (rods in his example) appear differently to different observers (one co-moving and the other non-comoving.) The rods are equal in length until they are moved. Then they become unequal in length as an artifact of differences in how they are observed. The "tricky shuffle" was tongue-in-cheek referring to different versions of "reality" for each observer after the rods are moved, while the rods "really" stay the same physical ("proper") length. What is real to one observer is unreal to the other, and vice-versa. Yet, as above, their proper (we can not say "real") length remains the same. Einstein clearly affirmed Varicak's assertion (that length contraction is apparent or subjective, depending on how observers see objects differently) even though he initially denied the assertion. Yet this very clearly self contradictory reply stands as Wikipedia's statement on "the reality of length contraction." I will not play the game of making this about me. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Ps; An editor wrote this subsection to address the never-ending debate about whether length contraction is "real" or not. But the text only shows Einstein contradicting himself when challenged by Varicak. It doesn't take a philosopher of science or a genius to see this, and it certainly is not anything close to clarification of the issue (the reality of length contraction), but rather a complete obfuscation. It is in dire need of "improvement." LCcritic ( talk) 17:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
LCcritic, we are here to build an encyclopedia. In the seven months you have been here, you have edited on no other topics except to promote "realism" criticism of special relativity. You are a textbook example of a single-purpose account; even your name clearly means "Length Contraction critic". Between your editing history and your user name, a case could be made that you are here solely to be disruptive. Your usage of your talk page is sufficient to establish that you are using Wikipedia as a forum and a soapbox and therefore in violation of policy. Are you here to build an encyclopedia? If so, please show us: diversify your editing to include non-relativity related topics. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors (besides DVdm and Paradoctor), on what authority was my section "Back to the Reality of length contraction" deleted and hidden (now restored)? Clearly it was based on the opinion that it was forbidden "original research." Shall all user page discussions be subjected to the same opinion and abusive deletion? LCcritic ( talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors, regarding "Is length contraction physical or not?": Imagine that you are a reader sincerely interested in finding an answer to that question in Wikipedia. This bears repeating (from my comments in "length contraction, talk"): Either physical objects shrink or they don't. If they do, physics is required to provide the physical explanation for it. If not, it must be clearly labeled as an observer-dependent phenomenon, and those differences in observations and measurements must be distinguished from actual physical changes in the objects observed. This remains the essence of my intended contribution to the improvement of Wikipedia. Yet none of the sources I have cited which address such a clarification are accepted here, given the dogmatic statement in "Criticism.. " that no criticisms of relativity are "... accepted by the scientific community." Ps; As I caught up on the latest "talk" on the length contraction talk page I found this (last comment there) by Martin Hogbin: "By answering Jrm's questions here (which we assume to be asked in good faith and with a view to improving the article) we may discover ways in which some things can be made clearer to the general reader." Good attitude. I sincerely ask why my above intent is not extended the same courtesy by editors here. LCcritic ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is another example of an editor's endorsement of the "reality" of length contraction and then a self contradiction: In the length contraction talk page, -Thucydides411 starts by telling me that "...length contraction is real." Then he ends the reply saying, "But the exact same physical reality exists, regardless of how you see it. This isn't a matter of debate in physics." There have been many other examples since I've been here. I'm poor at "search," but I'll add more as I find them. LCcritic ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
My last two contributions (about a half hour or more worth of work) were deleted because of "editor conflict," an example the "program" here regarding "simultaneity" in editing... which, of course relativity must deny. ("At the same time" depends on the observer.)But Wiki dumped my last two posts because I posted them "at the same time" as other editors were posting here. Here is my last one, which I saved (in reply to Modocc): " Yes. GIGO: Garbage in; garbage out. Math/goemetry and its various non-Euclidean models do not change the "real world" (which once was the subject of scientific investigation.) Earth will not shrink in any of its diameter *length* dimensions as a result of future fast flying frames of observation which might measure our nearly spherical planet to be "squished" in all possible ways. LCcritic ( talk) 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, my delayed reply to your muon argument for length contraction is now bolded above. LCcritic ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
BenRG, Re: "What Medeis said (and I agree) is that "is length contraction real?" is a meaningless question. It's meaningless because it's about the definition of the word "real" and not about any property of length contraction." It is not a meaningless question and the debate about it continues in the community of relativity/length contraction critics and very much needs clarification in the "Reality of length contraction" section. As I said above, if a reader is looking for an answer to the question "Is length contraction actual physical shortening of objects and distances or not?," and reads Wiki's "Reality of length contraction" section, he will only find Einstein contradicting himself, insisting that it is not just an "apparent, subjective" effect but then giving a clear example of how it depends on the observer. Wikipedia can do better than that if only the consensus/guideline/policy could be changed to allow criticism of length contraction, which it now explicitly does not. (See lead of "Criticism..." article.) LCcritic ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The last section was getting too long to navigate easily... and the title was a command to stop talking about length contraction, as if its "reality" status were settled. I've replied to DVdm's link on muons and time dilation above. The argument that it requires length contraction does not follow. Modocc said, "Note that if length contractions happened to be called apparent, then the light speed invariance calculations which require them are also apparent, which means relativity is not real, so LC is not going to be called apparent by the mainstream physicists, as you might have figured out by now." I (speaking as a realist) do not agree. A constant velocity of light does not require that physical objects (or distances through space) physically contract. Furthermore, as we both agree, it is absolutely absurd to claim that planets would physically flatten out ( as per contracted diameter length in the direction of an observer's travel) and stars would become physically closer to each other when a future high speed ship travels between them. I continue to invite SR advocates to make a cogent argument to the contrary. Hint: The math dictum that length contraction is the reciprocal of time dilation is not such an argument. Things (in the real world... Yes, there is one!) don't shrink just because the math says they must. "Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.(Kelley Ross: The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.) LCcritic ( talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Proposed topic ban for User:LCcritic. Thank you.
VQuakr (
talk)
03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.What this message means: you are on notice that your advocacy of non-standard interpretations of relativity is a violation of our policy on fringe ideas. You should be aware that we have extremely limited patience for people whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate ideas that are rejected by the scientific consensus. You are encouraged to find some other interest here. Guy ( Help!) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Stick to your account or you will be banned in short order per WP:SOCK.
Also please be aware that I am very very not interested indeed in having you state your case yet again. It is not persuasive. That is kind of the point. Guy ( Help!) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You have a de facto topic ban, as per the balance of opinion here.
If you edit anywhere on Wikipedia related to relativity, you will find yourself blocked.
The same applies if you continue using your user page or talk page as a soapbox. This is not based on any official Wikipedia support for relativity or rejection of the arguments you state against it, it is the result of your inability to drop it and move on when your proposed edits are reverted and fail to achieve consensus. You have shown that you are more passionate about your beliefs than about policy, consensus or collegial working, and that's something we only put up with for so long.
Please feel free to edit in other areas, as long as you do not violate this restriction - and please be aware that by this we mean the spirit as well as the letter of the restriction. Gaming the system can only make things worse for you. Guy ( Help!) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Man am I 5 years late to being here but I still can't help but put my thoughts down even if no one will see it. Now i'd like to say that nearly every major science we've came up with fails in some area. Quantum physics and Relativity are both used for different things because although they are different world views they both become very viable to predict and quantify the behavior of the universe in different fields (mainly the large scale and insanely small scale interactions which disagree with what we see depending on the science you use). Hell, even string theory which you can't even call a "theory" quite yet (im hopeful though!) has its uses. So far there is no "Superior and infallible" worldview but it does feel like we are getting closer and closer to one, and it most likely has something to do with properly defining gravity. Also I know not as much research had went into the higgs field back then but sadly the higgs field isn't really what produces gravity :( its effect is so miniscule and I really hoped that more would come from it.-- NikkeKatski [Elite] ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You were warned here at User talk:LCcritic#Summary 2 and here: "If you edit anywhere on Wikipedia related to relativity, you will find yourself blocked." I have reverted your most recent attempt as anonymous user 63.155.162.137 ( talk · contribs).
See also
- DVdm ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You were warned, obviously you have no interest in Wikipedia other than as a place to advance your - ahem - non-standard interpretation of reality, so you're now basically banned. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
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 [of the relativity theory, particularly of the general one] [...] 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,[A 32] 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)
Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
If you wish to get input from uninvolved editors on my and your behavior, I think the best place to start is Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Paradoctor ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, 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)
This is your last warning. The next time you add
unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at
Length contraction, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. -
DVdm (
talk)
20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
[Copied from the Talk:Length contraction page.] Please respond here.
It is commonly agreed that relativity is very much a realist theory. For example (with emphasis added): [1]
"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."
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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 [2] 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)
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 [in the direction of motion], 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 'Wikipedia; 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 [rest frame of the Sun], 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)
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)
Maybe the most simple and direct definition of realism, from 'Wikipedia; 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.”
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User_talk:Paradoctor#Hafele-Keating_Reloaded Paradoctor ( talk) 23:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits to
User talk:LCcritic could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on
legal threats and
civility. Users who make such threats may be
blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for
dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by
reliable independent sources and focusing especially on
verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. I realize you are probably being facetious
here, but please don't.
VQuakr (
talk)
22:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I return to this conversation with Paradoctor (not an "arbitrary break") and to my rebuttal which he has ignored for lack of cogent argument, I must presume: I said, "The probe can not be both 10 and 20 meters long at the same time." Paradoctor said, “...Same time in which reference frame? As you claim to understand relativity, you must know that "same time" depends on the observer." Wiki: “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers." Further explanation of my “at the same time” above: “I was referring to the ongoing measurement (of the probe) 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... all the way home.” The probe in my example is indeed being measured from Earth to be 10 meters and from the retrieval craft to be 20 meters at the same time. But Paradoctor refuses to address this very clear clarification of "at the same time," obsessively citing the relativity dictum of the relativity of simultaneity... which clearly does not apply in the above situation. (Also see my example of "at the same time" in the 'Relativity of simultaneity" talk page... Sorry, I still can't do links.) LCcritic ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
LCcritic, the 'arbitrary break' that Paradoctor inserted is just a heading inserted into long threads to make finding your way and editing easier. It is hard work scolling through pages of text to find the place where you wish to comment. It is much easier to find your place if there are section headings a regular intervals. Paradoctor was just being helpful so assume some good faith and try not to SHOUT at everyone. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"The probe [...] is [...] being measured from Earth to be 10 meters and from the retrieval craft to be 20 meters at the same time." I shouldn't have given the benefit of doubt to your claim that you understand relativity. That you answer my question by restating a meaningless statement shows that you haven't understood what I'm getting at. Let's try to rectify that. Time is measured by synchronized clocks at rest relative to the (inertial) observer in opportune locations. We measure distances between the clocks by resting rods. A sufficiently extended collection of clocks and rods yields a coordinate system. The coordinates thus established are physical coordinates, nothing apparent here, and they apply just as well in Newtonian physics. From the postulates of SR we then derive the Lorentz transformation to describe of the relationship between these frames. This is not an arbitrary choice, but the logical consequence of the way the coordinates established, in conjunction with the relativistic postulates. The Lorentz transformation now tells us two things relevant to this discussion:
These two effects preclude any notion of "same time" / "simultaneous" across different observers. This is relevant to length contraction, as length is the simultaneous determination of the positions of start and end of a measuring rod by finding the two clocks next to start and end of the measuring rod at some given time t. Since these two events are not simultaneous for the moving observer, they do not constitute a length measurement. As it is not possible to give meaning to the term "length measured at the same time by different observers", your objection is meaningless, and does not support your claim that SR is incompatible with realism. BTW, the only non-classical assumption going into this result is the constancy of the speed of light, which has solid observational support. Paradoctor ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Enough 'word salad' avoiding basic realism already! SR insists that all frames of reference yield equally valid measurements ("no preferred frame.") There are consequences, as follows: Earth morphs with all approaching observers, differently for each. (No "real unchanging*" Earth, *granting trivial changes due to natural causes over billions of years.) A 20 ft pole will fit into a 10 ft barn... "as observed from a non-co-moving frame of relative velocity .866c." There is no such thing as two events happening at the same time. It all depends on who sees what, when from different frames. Reality depends on the observer. There is no reality independent of the observer. Idealism trumps realism. (Einstein: "I am still not a realist." Also, "'The physical world is real.' The above statement seems intrinsically senseless...") That said, still no rebuttal to my probe example, clearly falsifying length contraction, but only denial of the two ongoing measurements happening at the same time, the denial of which i debunked.) I also invited reference to my example in the "relativity of simultaneity, talk" page, showing that different observers seeing events at different times does not make them happen at different times. My light beams struck their targets at the same time, and different frames of reference did not alter that actual, real simultaneity. How about editors address these issues for a change. LCcritic ( talk) 18:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"Thus the length of the rod as measured in the frame of reference S with respect to which the rod is moving is shorter than the length as measured from a frame of reference S' relative to which the rod is stationary. A rod will be observed to have its maximum length when it is stationary in a frame of reference. The length so-measured, l0 is known as its proper length.
This phenomenon is known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. It is not the consequence of some force ‘squeezing’ the rod, but it is a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects. Note however that someone who actually looks at this rod as it passes by will not see a shorter rod. If the time that is required for the light from each point on the rod to reach the observer’s eye is taken into account, the overall effect is that of making the rod appear as if it is rotated in space."
(Overlapping edit conflict) Editors, pleasenotice the subsection title above and address it. Realism is about the world as it is independent of observational frames of reference.More replies about 'this frame's measurement of an object (or distance) vs 'that frame's measurement of the same object (or distance) does not address the issue of realism. And realism is not misapplying an "apples vs oranges" misconception. The probe remains, as built, 20 meters long (it remains that "apple") even while it appears to be 10 meters as measured from Earth as it approaches (appearing as an "orange.") Then it is supposed to magically grow back to 20 meters as it slows down and lands on Earth... changing from the contracted "orange" back into the expanded "apple!") The insistence that length contraction is "a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects," is false. Realism challenges all physicists to admit that while contraction of objects might eventually become an "observable effect," (no evidence for that yet), that does not logically require that the object itself physically contract. (Same of course for distances between objects, say stars for instance.) The subject of realism (the world as it intrinsically is) vs idealism (that reality depends on how it is observed) is part of the body of knowledge called the philosophy of science. A philosopher of science is an expert in this field, while a relativity physicist is an expert in what they are told in relativity texts in the course of getting their credentials. So they cite the acceptable mainstream texts, as DVdm does above, and claim that length contraction "... is not the consequence of some force ‘squeezing’ the rod, but it is a real physical phenomenon with observable physical effects." The possibility of observable effects is not denied by the realist. The claim that it is "a real physical phenomenon" (a physical shortening of the object) is in fact denied by realism. The philosopher of science is the expert in such a case vis-a-vis the realism vs idealism issue as applied to length contraction. The physicist is the "amateur" on that subject, as in evidence above. DVdm and Paradoctor and all 'mainstreamers' here are still in denial of the fact that length contraction as an observer-dependent phenomenon is based on idealism, which denies (as Einstein did) that there is a real world independent of observation. Anyone here able to address this issue? Ps; I guess my logical argument challenge scared everyone away, but here it is again: Make a logical argument from "The speed of light is constant"... to "... Therefore physical objects actually contract in length." Btw, how is it again that a rod (or probe) "really, physically contracts" without experiencing any force to "squeeze" the space between of its constituent parts or its atoms? (Or is it just apparent, not physical contraction?) Now apply that to Earth's diameter... same principle. LCcritic ( talk) 18:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
At your request, a detailed logical argument was provided. Your reaction was to repeat your claims and the misbegotten non-arguments you try to support them with. Anyone willing and capable of rational discussion would have read and analyzed the argument, and then provided a counterargument listing any perceived logical flaws in it. Not you. Your documented behavior in the past months puts you among those who "dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference". As a general rule, the Wikipedia community is pretty tolerant. You have discovered the limit.
For this reason, I'm telling you to stop pushing your views. This discussion ends here. If I see further edits promoting your views, I will ask for your account to be blocked. Paradoctor ( talk) 21:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
==Ignoring the Rules==
Seems this was ignored. I’ll try again. I was asking for discussion of the "Ignore All Rules" allowance which might improve fair coverage of criticisms of relativity (length contraction in this specific case.)As I told VQuakr, "My 'main goal' is to bring fair coverage of criticisms of relativity into the text of Wikipedia." In that spirit, do editors here seriously and honestly contend that none of the critical sources I cited above are valid? In that case, is it literally true that any discussion of whose credentials are valid must be restricted to the relativity community's point of view? Many of the critics I cited are criticizing the idealism inherent in frame-of-reference-differences as reflecting actual physical differences in "the world." That makes the implicit rule, 'No Realists Allowed A Voice' (or "no criticism of relativity allowed') a literally enforced Wikipedia policy. There are many such voices/critics, some more credible than others, but so far, literally none are allowed in the text of "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" or that 'talk' page. The answer to all of the above continues to be simply stonewalling, i.e., no real interest in improving the encyclopedia to include even basic, very sound criticism. LCcritic ( talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Ps; I read the "Noose" article linked above. Apparently Michio Kaku was wrong, or at least the constancy and limit of the speed limit of light remains verified... (Therefore physical objects shrink?... How does that argument go again?) Anyway, relativity slipped out of the noose on that one. That's one down. Is it dozens, hundreds, or thousands to go? Of course that depends on "credentialing process" in which only those who agree with relativity can be so credentialed. LCcritic ( talk) 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
More of the same. I went looking for where and how to complain about your abuse and found the process too complicated to be worth the trouble. So I just ask other editors here to weigh in on Paradoctor's conduct. He remains blatantly personally abusive. If it is not considered in violation of protocol for user conduct, then then there is no such meaningful protocol here. LCcritic ( talk) 18:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
So, can parallel lines intersect or not? If so, how. This was the point of departure for non-Euclidean geometry, the basis of relativity, so surely its advocates can explain it. Then, the most basic question pertaining to length contraction: Does "reality" (you know, includ ing all physical objects and the distances between them) change form or distribution in space just because relativity theorists decide to represent it ('the world') from a different coordinate system? Ps; my new section title was deleted. The is not part of the previous section. LCcritic ( talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In the concluding comments of his lecture, Riemann apologized for presenting such an apparently useless topic, but, he said, the value of such an investigation perhaps lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas should the time ever come when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean. These highly prophetic words were actually realized some fifty years after his death, through Einstein's general theory of relativity.
27.2. Let us interpret the Riemannian non-Euclidean plane as the surface of a given sphere S, a "point" of the Riemannian plane as a point on S, and a "line" of the Riemannian plane as a great circle on S. Show that Postulates 1' , 2' , 5' of the lecture text, along with Euclid's Postulates 3 and 4, hold in this model, thus establishing the (relative) consistency of the Riemannian non-Euclidean geometry.
1'. Two distinct points determine at least one straight line.
2'. A straight line is boundless.
5'. Any two straight lines in a plane intersect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shapes+of+space,+non-euclidean&client=firefox-a&hs=hdL&rls
"Who told you that axioms should be true or false?" Nobody 'told me.' I am not a parrot or a robot or a trained animal. It is in fact either true or false that parallel lines on a plane can intersect. (I taught logic... an 'expert,' so to speak. The dean of philosophy at the university where I taught thought so, anyway.) If false, relativity is based only on mental models of some variety without referents in the empirically observed world, much less ontological definition of "entities.". I know that there is no chance of that being a part of Wiki's "coverage" of "Criticisms of the theory of relativity." Thanks for the last word. That must mean I'm right!... Or at least that there is no logical argument to support "the basics" of non-Euclidean geometry, the basis of relativity. LCcritic ( talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So, regarding my question/appeal: "Does anyone here have both the intelligence and civility** to talk respectfully** about the transition to non-Euclidean geometry which became the basis for relativity?" (see section title.)... the answer is clearly, no. Instead the dynamic duo for personal harassment of relativity critics, like Beavis and Butthead*, crack stupid jokes and feed each other's game of 'bash LCcritic.' You are both dis-invited from posting on this page. I can't enforce it but I can do my best to fill your talk pages with equally inane BS. LCcritic ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC) ["Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."]
Aside from the ongoing personal harassment campaign by Beavis and Butthead, is anyone here interested in a discussion of the non-Euclidean roots of relativity, leading to citation of published criticism of the geometric principles upon which relativity is based in the "Criticisms" article?... Or published debunking of "the philosophy of shrinking physical objects" and the "frame-dependence of the distances between stars?" My intent is still to bring legitimate criticism of relativity* into Wikipedia's articles, regardless of what the bashers would have readers believe. (*In spite of present policy that there is no legitimate criticism of relativity. LCcritic ( talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I dug this out of obscurity under a critic's section, "Drawing the line." I edited out the "Noose" reference, which failed to "hang" relativity and another inconclusive "dialogue":
This encyclopedia should present a fair account of every field of science, including reasonable published criticisms of relativity. (Not my published criticisms.) Here are a few such published criticisms. There are dozens more and many critical websites:
G. O. Mueller The German Research Project “95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-- 2003): "We document the publications and we try to inform the public about the existence of the strong and uninterrupted tradition of criticism”
From: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html : “For all their apparent predictive power, Einstein's relativity theories are deeply flawed, as the critical papers in this first of two Infinite Energy special "Einstein Reconsidered" issues will demonstrate formally. Einstein criticism is, of course, not new. (We are obviously not referring to Nazi-inspired, anti-Semitic tracts against relativity that were published in the 1920s, which disparaged his relativity theory as "Jewish science" or worse.) There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein's work, such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics,1 Physics Essays,2 Apeiron,3 Journal of New Energy,4 etc., as well as books by thoughtful critics: Harold Aspden,5 Petr Beckmann,6 Peter and Neal Graneau,7 Ronald Hatch,8 Herbert Ives,9 Thomas Phipps, Jr.,10 and Franco Selleri,11 to name but a few.' There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA),12 which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and prestige, in part by mystifying veritable "scientific saints," such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking. “
http://www.theoryrelativity.com/ : “The opponents of physical relativism cannot reconcile themselves with the fact that the sizes of physical quantities inherent in an object depend not only on composition, structure and physical state of this object, but also on the velocity of the given object and the measuring devices relative to each other. It is a widely spread opinion that physical relativism is only denied by the critics of the theory of relativity. In reality, attempts at derelativisation of the special theory of relativity, including rather successful ones, have been made not only by critics, but by supporters of the special theory of relativity as well.”
http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/CRITICISM_OF_RELATIVITY
Einstein’s Jury (Description): “The book examines Einstein's theory of general relativity through the eyes of astronomers, many of whom were not convinced of the legitimacy of Einstein's startling breakthrough.” See specifically Lewis and Tolman denying length contraction claims as “...not physical changes in the body itself." (pgs 36 & 37.)
Henry Lindler: “Albert Einstein was a subjective mathematical idealist.”'
Delbert larson: “However, no direct measurement of length contraction has ever been done.”
Kurt Godel: [1949a] “A remark on the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy” (Same relationship noted by critics from philosophical realism.)
There are dozens of additional *legitimate* (*edited in) publications and websites criticizing SR. To claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest! 75.170.5.220 ( talk) 18:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Modocc, seems as the sweeping dismissal of all critical references in the above section has verified that no criticism of relativity based on any version of realism will stand to be included in the "Criticisms..." article. (See my appeal for policy change and replies at the village pump (Wiki's water cooler?) So, if we are to continue discussion of length contraction and time dilation, a new section was required. As I said, I have no problem with the tons of evidence that clocks slow down as they are accelerated to higher velocities than their control "stay at home' mates... or in stronger gravitational fields. No doubt that the same thing would happen to the physical process of aging in the interstellar travelers. So relativity has thrown out any/all standardization of time. "It's all relative." But it still takes "a year" (now precisely standardized) for an Earth orbit of the Sun, and that happens over 2.5 million times as the light from Andromeda travels to Earth. Just a "reality check" on what a standard year is. Then there is the math trick whereby the faster you travel the shorter the distance traveled! So the 2.5 million light years (distance!) to Andromeda is "shortened" to less than 1/90,000th of that "for the travelers." This brings us back to the criticism of SR from realism. Obviously the "real" distance to Andromeda does not "contract,"no more than the "real" (physical) length of Earth's diameter changes with every possible approaching/passing frame of reference which might measure it. This kind of criticism from realism, by many published authors is not allowed in Wikipedia. This is unreasonable censorship by "mainstream" relativity, defending the realm against all such critics. My appeal at "The Pump" was an appeal to change that policy. It too has failed. LCcritic ( talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Modocc and Paradoctor, the last time you went at it like this was on Modocc's talk page (now archived.) The above belongs there too. (Then I will delete the above exchange.) Neither of you addressed my challenge [...]: [SR claims that the (overworked) 20 foot ladder will fit into the 10 foot barn if it is observed/measured approaching the barn at .866c. The same is claimed for Earth's diameter. It IS only 4000 miles in length when approached at .866c; so they claim. Deal with it.] Velocity is relative, so if an observer/frame approaches Earth, as above, Earth "approaches" that frame at the same velocity, so the claims of length contraction must apply. Yet no one claims that Earth is then "accelerated," causing its diameter to contract in the direction of its motion... same direction as the approaching "observer." Again, deal with it or go play in your own sandboxes. LCcritic ( talk) 18:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
By way of review or summary of claims and criticisms of length contraction; True of false: 1. Different observations/measurements from different frames of reference can not change physical objects or distances. (Argument from realism... See contrary specific example, #7 below.) 2. The faster you go the shorter the distance traveled. (Ref: To Andromeda in 28 years when the distance is contracted as time is dilated. "Ask The Physicist," Dave Goldberg.) 3. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. (Euclidean geometry.) 4. Parallel lines can intersect. (Roots of relativity in non-Euclidean geometry.) 5. There is no such thing as two events happening at the same time, because simultaneity depends on 'who sees what, when,' and that changes with frames of reference. (See my argument to the contrary in the "Relativity of Simultaneity" talk page.) 6. The 'world' exists and has intrinsic properties (including dimensions and distances between objects) independent of how they are observed and measured. (Realism, before relativity re-invented it to suit the frame-dependent version of 'reality.') Finally, my favorite example for debunking the absurdity: 7. The physical "real" length of Earth's diameter depends on the frame of reference of the observer. LCcritic ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Please show in the case of each source cited how each is determined to be unreliable. No, I do not accept your attempt to shift the burden of defending your sources. In any case, if after all this time you do not understand why a wikia source fails WP:RS then you are too incompetent to edit here. If you review your sources and still think you have one that meets the policy requirements, present that single, best one and I am willing to have a look to help explain the policy to you. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before starting an arbitration request. VQuakr ( talk) 19:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice tag team stonewall maneuver by two hard core defenders of mainstream orthodoxy. Perfect dodge of quoted policy: "Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. You refused the challenge to show how all sources I cited fail as "significant alternatives." Then to that "single best source" you promised to address; Einstein: "I concede that the natural sciences concern the 'real,' but I am still not a realist." Nada! Does your "offer still stand?" Those I cited are realists, most qualified as "significant alternative" critics of relativity, the "father" of which was, in his own words "not a realist." No comment on the obvious lead article exception to the 'no editorial synthesis or opinions' policy cited. No rebuttal to my reply to your accusation that I am incompetent. My intent to improve Wikipedia by allowing such legitimate criticism as cited is brushed aside by you hardcore orthodoxy defenders, claiming to have debunked criticism... presumably based on a consensus among other like minded defenders of orthodoxy, all of whom agree that there is no legitimate criticism of relativity. (Hmmm. What is wrong with this picture?) See again quoted lead article statement that no such criticism is "accepted by the scientific community." Compare with "neutral point of view" policy. Compare with my comments in the section above on the "Ignore All Rules" allowance for improving the encyclopedia. Whether one ignores them or follows them (contradictory as they are,) there is still no criticism of relativity allowed here. LCcritic ( talk) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr,..."That quote does not mention relativity." Really?! That is your basis for rejecting it as a source? It clearly establishes that relativity is based on rejection of realism (see definitions often quoted), which makes criticism by realists spot-on relevant. Yet the "Criticisms..." article synthesizes and generalizes and then states the opinion that no criticisms of relativity are "accepted by the scientific community." How is that not synthesis and opinion, defending the mainstream by excluding all criticism of it? My "rant?" Could that possibly be just your opinion which conveniently ignores all points I made, since you can not refute them? But DVdm gets the prize for the most personally abusive editor here in my experience (maybe tied with Paradoctor) with the brass to cite me for civility protocol violation. I leave their long records of personally abusive attacks against me to other readers. Citing each case would fill a very long section here, without relevance to the subject. LCcritic ( talk) 18:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Restored. See latest conversation below discussing "original" length contraction thought experiments. Lots of "slack" for "original" discussion there and on other talk pages. DVdm (or whoever) has no right to single this section out for deletion to "hidden" based on an *opinion* that it is forbidden "original research."
First, I am totally tired of dealing with all the above stonewalling and extreme lack of civility by a gang of proven relativity-critic-bashers, 'defending the mainstream realm,' as it were. My examples of relativity's denial of realism and criticisms from realism have all been excluded because of the prevailing opinion among editors that no criticism of relativity is legitimate. This is all very obvious to any fair-minded reader, not of course including any of the above with extremely prejudiced opinions against any such criticism. The long history of personal abuse against me is also obvious... again, to any fair-minded reader. But I am sure that the worst offenders can find 'policies and guidelines' to hide behind in any specific case I cite and of course use clever smokescreens for all nasty name-calling (like calling me a liar without actually saying the words, "You are a liar," or characterizing me as a variety of famous villains and fools with links to individual cases.) I refuse to further defend myself against this harassment. I also refuse to continue the argument from realism on the terms or in the "playing field" dictated by the above gang.
That said, this section will go back to the heart of the matter (see section title) as covered in Wikipedia's Length Contraction article [...]: [In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that length contraction is "real" according to Lorentz, while it is "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein. Einstein replied: "The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.] The section goes on to quote Einstein's thought experiment starting with, "Let A'B' and A"B" be the endpoints of two rods of same proper length." As in the first quote* he goes on to argue that different frames of reference which see/measure the two rods to be different lengths changes the "reality" that they started with, i.e., having the "same proper length." *As above, length contraction "doesn't really exist... for a co-moving observer," but it "really exists...(for) a non-comoving observer." Obviously the "reality" of length contraction depends on how an object appears to the observer. So there is no "real length" independent of observers... though the rods' "proper lengths" were the same before the tricky shuffle which makes them appear different lengths to different observers. Yet he denies that length contraction is only due to appearance in reply to Varicak. Apparently Einstein's status as a revered genius makes him exempt from such obvious and blatant self contradiction. The result is that his quotes, contradicting himself stand as the definitive statement in Wikipedia's subsection on "the reality of length contraction." LCcritic ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, the focus of this section is on Einstein's reply to Varicak's assertion that length contraction was "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein. Yet Einstein's reply clearly said that the "reality" of length contraction depends how objects (rods in his example) appear differently to different observers (one co-moving and the other non-comoving.) The rods are equal in length until they are moved. Then they become unequal in length as an artifact of differences in how they are observed. The "tricky shuffle" was tongue-in-cheek referring to different versions of "reality" for each observer after the rods are moved, while the rods "really" stay the same physical ("proper") length. What is real to one observer is unreal to the other, and vice-versa. Yet, as above, their proper (we can not say "real") length remains the same. Einstein clearly affirmed Varicak's assertion (that length contraction is apparent or subjective, depending on how observers see objects differently) even though he initially denied the assertion. Yet this very clearly self contradictory reply stands as Wikipedia's statement on "the reality of length contraction." I will not play the game of making this about me. I am here to improve the encyclopedia. Ps; An editor wrote this subsection to address the never-ending debate about whether length contraction is "real" or not. But the text only shows Einstein contradicting himself when challenged by Varicak. It doesn't take a philosopher of science or a genius to see this, and it certainly is not anything close to clarification of the issue (the reality of length contraction), but rather a complete obfuscation. It is in dire need of "improvement." LCcritic ( talk) 17:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
LCcritic, we are here to build an encyclopedia. In the seven months you have been here, you have edited on no other topics except to promote "realism" criticism of special relativity. You are a textbook example of a single-purpose account; even your name clearly means "Length Contraction critic". Between your editing history and your user name, a case could be made that you are here solely to be disruptive. Your usage of your talk page is sufficient to establish that you are using Wikipedia as a forum and a soapbox and therefore in violation of policy. Are you here to build an encyclopedia? If so, please show us: diversify your editing to include non-relativity related topics. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors (besides DVdm and Paradoctor), on what authority was my section "Back to the Reality of length contraction" deleted and hidden (now restored)? Clearly it was based on the opinion that it was forbidden "original research." Shall all user page discussions be subjected to the same opinion and abusive deletion? LCcritic ( talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Editors, regarding "Is length contraction physical or not?": Imagine that you are a reader sincerely interested in finding an answer to that question in Wikipedia. This bears repeating (from my comments in "length contraction, talk"): Either physical objects shrink or they don't. If they do, physics is required to provide the physical explanation for it. If not, it must be clearly labeled as an observer-dependent phenomenon, and those differences in observations and measurements must be distinguished from actual physical changes in the objects observed. This remains the essence of my intended contribution to the improvement of Wikipedia. Yet none of the sources I have cited which address such a clarification are accepted here, given the dogmatic statement in "Criticism.. " that no criticisms of relativity are "... accepted by the scientific community." Ps; As I caught up on the latest "talk" on the length contraction talk page I found this (last comment there) by Martin Hogbin: "By answering Jrm's questions here (which we assume to be asked in good faith and with a view to improving the article) we may discover ways in which some things can be made clearer to the general reader." Good attitude. I sincerely ask why my above intent is not extended the same courtesy by editors here. LCcritic ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is another example of an editor's endorsement of the "reality" of length contraction and then a self contradiction: In the length contraction talk page, -Thucydides411 starts by telling me that "...length contraction is real." Then he ends the reply saying, "But the exact same physical reality exists, regardless of how you see it. This isn't a matter of debate in physics." There have been many other examples since I've been here. I'm poor at "search," but I'll add more as I find them. LCcritic ( talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
My last two contributions (about a half hour or more worth of work) were deleted because of "editor conflict," an example the "program" here regarding "simultaneity" in editing... which, of course relativity must deny. ("At the same time" depends on the observer.)But Wiki dumped my last two posts because I posted them "at the same time" as other editors were posting here. Here is my last one, which I saved (in reply to Modocc): " Yes. GIGO: Garbage in; garbage out. Math/goemetry and its various non-Euclidean models do not change the "real world" (which once was the subject of scientific investigation.) Earth will not shrink in any of its diameter *length* dimensions as a result of future fast flying frames of observation which might measure our nearly spherical planet to be "squished" in all possible ways. LCcritic ( talk) 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, my delayed reply to your muon argument for length contraction is now bolded above. LCcritic ( talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
BenRG, Re: "What Medeis said (and I agree) is that "is length contraction real?" is a meaningless question. It's meaningless because it's about the definition of the word "real" and not about any property of length contraction." It is not a meaningless question and the debate about it continues in the community of relativity/length contraction critics and very much needs clarification in the "Reality of length contraction" section. As I said above, if a reader is looking for an answer to the question "Is length contraction actual physical shortening of objects and distances or not?," and reads Wiki's "Reality of length contraction" section, he will only find Einstein contradicting himself, insisting that it is not just an "apparent, subjective" effect but then giving a clear example of how it depends on the observer. Wikipedia can do better than that if only the consensus/guideline/policy could be changed to allow criticism of length contraction, which it now explicitly does not. (See lead of "Criticism..." article.) LCcritic ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The last section was getting too long to navigate easily... and the title was a command to stop talking about length contraction, as if its "reality" status were settled. I've replied to DVdm's link on muons and time dilation above. The argument that it requires length contraction does not follow. Modocc said, "Note that if length contractions happened to be called apparent, then the light speed invariance calculations which require them are also apparent, which means relativity is not real, so LC is not going to be called apparent by the mainstream physicists, as you might have figured out by now." I (speaking as a realist) do not agree. A constant velocity of light does not require that physical objects (or distances through space) physically contract. Furthermore, as we both agree, it is absolutely absurd to claim that planets would physically flatten out ( as per contracted diameter length in the direction of an observer's travel) and stars would become physically closer to each other when a future high speed ship travels between them. I continue to invite SR advocates to make a cogent argument to the contrary. Hint: The math dictum that length contraction is the reciprocal of time dilation is not such an argument. Things (in the real world... Yes, there is one!) don't shrink just because the math says they must. "Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions.(Kelley Ross: The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry.) LCcritic ( talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Proposed topic ban for User:LCcritic. Thank you.
VQuakr (
talk)
03:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.What this message means: you are on notice that your advocacy of non-standard interpretations of relativity is a violation of our policy on fringe ideas. You should be aware that we have extremely limited patience for people whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate ideas that are rejected by the scientific consensus. You are encouraged to find some other interest here. Guy ( Help!) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Stick to your account or you will be banned in short order per WP:SOCK.
Also please be aware that I am very very not interested indeed in having you state your case yet again. It is not persuasive. That is kind of the point. Guy ( Help!) 18:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You have a de facto topic ban, as per the balance of opinion here.
If you edit anywhere on Wikipedia related to relativity, you will find yourself blocked.
The same applies if you continue using your user page or talk page as a soapbox. This is not based on any official Wikipedia support for relativity or rejection of the arguments you state against it, it is the result of your inability to drop it and move on when your proposed edits are reverted and fail to achieve consensus. You have shown that you are more passionate about your beliefs than about policy, consensus or collegial working, and that's something we only put up with for so long.
Please feel free to edit in other areas, as long as you do not violate this restriction - and please be aware that by this we mean the spirit as well as the letter of the restriction. Gaming the system can only make things worse for you. Guy ( Help!) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Man am I 5 years late to being here but I still can't help but put my thoughts down even if no one will see it. Now i'd like to say that nearly every major science we've came up with fails in some area. Quantum physics and Relativity are both used for different things because although they are different world views they both become very viable to predict and quantify the behavior of the universe in different fields (mainly the large scale and insanely small scale interactions which disagree with what we see depending on the science you use). Hell, even string theory which you can't even call a "theory" quite yet (im hopeful though!) has its uses. So far there is no "Superior and infallible" worldview but it does feel like we are getting closer and closer to one, and it most likely has something to do with properly defining gravity. Also I know not as much research had went into the higgs field back then but sadly the higgs field isn't really what produces gravity :( its effect is so miniscule and I really hoped that more would come from it.-- NikkeKatski [Elite] ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You were warned here at User talk:LCcritic#Summary 2 and here: "If you edit anywhere on Wikipedia related to relativity, you will find yourself blocked." I have reverted your most recent attempt as anonymous user 63.155.162.137 ( talk · contribs).
See also
- DVdm ( talk) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You were warned, obviously you have no interest in Wikipedia other than as a place to advance your - ahem - non-standard interpretation of reality, so you're now basically banned. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)