LCcritic

Untitled

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

You seem to question whether Einstein meant what he said in the quote I cited, i.e., that the statement, “The physical world is real” is “senseless,” and “The natural sciences deal with the 'real', but I am nonetheless not a realist." So you said, “...so it may take more than just this one quote to be sure, and from a policy perspective, its an interpretation that needs to come from a secondary source.” To be sure he meant what he said requires more quotes and an interpretation from a secondary source... as Wiki policy?? Hard to believe! “I am not a realist” requires no “interpretation” or further quotations. And what realism is, which he clearly denies, is well defined: Wiki’s Philosophical Realism, opening statement: “Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our *conceptual schemes*, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.” (my * emphasis.) Also, from Wiki’s Realism (Philosophical): “Philosophical realism: belief that reality exists independently of observers.” From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.” Quoting Godel from “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”: “Following up the consequences [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)

January 2014

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)

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

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

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

Where to complain

If you wish to get input from uninvolved editors on my and your behavior, I think the best place to start is 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)

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

LCCritic, the reason that Paradoctor "will not allow your editorial contributions" is very simple: Wikipedia does not allow your editorial contributions. As many contributors explained to you many times before in on various talk pages, some of our relevant policies are laid out at wp:FRINGE, wp:NOTFORUM and wp:CONSENSUS. It is indeed "learn the rules and protocol or go away." If you don't, you will probably be made to go away. Please consider this another warning (see [1]) for disruption by talk page abuse. - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Final warning

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

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

Response to Your Talk Page Question

You complain that your criticisms of Special relativity were "shut down". I don't find that comment to be accurate. After discussion on the talk page, which was appropriate, you went to WP:DRN, which is used to request assistance in resolving content disputes. It isn't clear what the content dispute is that you tried to raise. You stated a criticism of relativity, which appears to be that the theory relies on philosophical idealism, but you didn't provide published sources for that argument. Since you didn't provide published sources, and since it wasn't even clear to me what you wanted added to the article, the volunteer moderator had to close the discussion as failed, because it appears that you were trying to insert your own analysis, which is considered original synthesis, a form of original research. At least, that is what I thought you were asking, but it isn't clear. You then went to the Help Desk with a hostile post stating that dispute resolution is a sham. It didn't appear to me that you had made effective use of dispute resolution. Also, when you went to the Help Desk, you were forum shopping, which is disapproved of, by asking a different group of volunteer editors to deal with an issue that you had already not handled well. You neither stated a question about how to edit 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)

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

Unsourced

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

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

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

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

Realism

[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):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about I do my argument and you do yours.

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

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

Question from LCcritic for Martin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Realism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to Clarify

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

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

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

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

I still see a blatant contradiction here. You say a traveler would measure the Earth to have a length of 4000 miles [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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modocc's Question

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

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

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

LCcritic's Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellis, Yes there is a dispute about the definition of realism. PLEASE read (or re-read) my last entry in the "length contraction, talk" page. Let us take Martin Hogbin's assertion as an example (there are many more) of SR's claim that objects physically shrink due to relativistic effects: "Objects, including the Earth, really do shrink..." Yet you say, "...special relativity does not claim that "reality changes" due to being described in terms of different coordinate systems." Now let's take a couple of definitions of realism from my post noted above: From '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)

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

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

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

Can parallel lines intersect?

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

Going Nowhere... Fast.

Maybe the most simple and direct definition of realism, from '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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thought experimental falsification of physical length contraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

Quick, call the president of physics! VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how well LCcritic matches the cliche. I don't think he has a degree in philosophy, though. Paradoctor (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Those who are not psychologists" You are not. Prove it or shut up, this is boring." My last illusion that Wiki editors were among the civilized scholars discussing relativity... has just just been corrected. That was EXTREMELY INSULTING. I thought that was not allowed here. My misconception. It won't happen again. More physics fascism; par for the course. That sounded like the juvenile chant, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" I was, as a matter of documented fact, a psychologist. You claim to know better. I eagerly await your "proof" that I am a liar. I will be glad to meet you in civil court on the charge of 'defamation of character.' You will lose, and then, hopefully apologize for your error. Otherwise I reflect you own advice, "Prove it or shut up, this is boring."... a pouting juvenile... just guessing here.LCcritic (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Ps; Renaming the section, "arbitrary break' was done on your own arbitration... consistent with your history (with me) of being a 'control freak' lecturing me on relativity. I do not approve... as if that mattered... a little humor there.LCcritic (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Renaming the section" I didn't. I added a subheading. Which is entirely appropriate here. Are you attempting to correct experienced editors? Which you are not, in fact and by own admission.

"that I am a liar" Nobody said you were. After all, it's quite possible that you believe what you say. Stranger things have happened.

"documented fact" Would that be a fact in the same way you were a philosophy "professor"?

"I do not approve [...] humor" That is not surprising. [[File:|18px|link=]]

The one thing that stands out like a sore thumb here is that you jumped at the opportunity to not address the criticism of your purported argument, restricting yourself to ranting about sideband signalling. Can't say I'm surprised. Paradoctor (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Addressing Paradoctor's snide remarks above: His first statement is a technicality supposed to lend legitimacy to his taking the conversation off topic yet again. Regarding his second statement: I am a retired psychologist. He said, "You are not." That statement calls me a liar, but he hides behind a technical difference in his own mind. To his third statement: My academic history is in fact documented (and will remain undisclosed here, as my private life will remain confidential.) I have already explained and Paradoctor knows well that I taught an advanced "special studies" course for the "gifted" on the philosophy of science (contrasting realism... see above... with idealism... the supposed "observer-dependence of reality")... without a Phd but with the approval of the dean of the department of philosophy and with my academic adviser as the official full professor monitoring my curriculum. Yet he flings innuendo implying that I am lying. As for "not address(ing) the criticism, " I repeatedly gave the argument from realism in reply to his absurd insistence there there are only three possibilities in answer to his "pole and barn" challenge... that the "length contracted" pole is only apparently contracted, not physically contracted. As for "not addressing" my argument... see the return to my experiment below. (... "ranting about sideband signalling"?) LCcritic (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An aside on testing length contraction with macroscopical objects

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

March 2014

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)

VQuakr, Thanks for your advice. I had no intention of taking Paradoctor to civil court. Nowhere close to worth the trouble!, but it was his accusation that I am a liar! It was his defamation... like 'prove that I was a psychologist or shut up and go away.' What? I am a liar until I prove otherwise. What kind of a "scientist" believes that! I do not "roll over and play dead" when my character is assassinated. Paradoctor and DVdm are very good at that. Time to drop "liar" name calling, I suggest. LCcritic (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, you weren't called a liar, that's strictly in your own mind. That I no longer extend the presumption of facticity toward your claims about yourself is a consequence of your behavior. Until you provide evidence to convince me otherwise, you'll live with my skepticism. Paradoctor (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Return to thought experimental falsification of physical length contraction

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)

For the benefit of LCcritic

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)

Thanks for the clarification. Still, it was just another diversion from my example of falsification of length contraction. My caps were just an attempt at emphasis without knowing the right tools. Now I found the key to bold so my emphasis will now be more... "proper." LCcritic (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Return again to thought experimental falsification of physical length contraction

"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:

1. When two observers move relative to each other, they see the other observer's clocks run slow.
2. When an observer observes (simultaneously at some time t in his coordinates) two clocks of the moving observer, he'll see that the moving clocks show different times. For the moving observer, the two events of clock coincidence happen at different times, not simultaneously, as they do for the resting observer.

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)

That the moving observer measures such events at different times doesn't negate the prediction that the different observers measure the exact same static object to have different spacial lengths which is what LCcritic is referring to. In fact, that lengths differ with reference frames is why I asked above what is the limit to the Earth's supposed four dimensionally rotated thinness. Nor have we empirically verified the relativity of either lengths or simultaneity. LCcritic, your observation that different reference frame lengths are measured can already be found in the relativistic physics' literature for those of us that are intimately familiar with it, thus it doesn't shed any new light on the scientific theory's veracity. -Modocc (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "empirically verified the relativity either lengths or simultaneity" If there was (direct) empirical evidence for or against length contraction, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And that simultaneity is frame-relative is a direct consequence of the frame independence of c, and that is confirmed by observation down to the level of precision so far attainable. Being a network of synchronized clocks establishing a planet-wide coordinate system, GPS would have detected any funny business with simultaneity long since.

"doesn't negate the prediction" Hein? Nobody says it does. If it did, it would support LCcritic's position! LCcritic talks about a concept of simultaneity that doesn't exist in relativity, and that is what I refuted above. That each observer measures a different length in their own frame is what LCcritic is LCcritizing. The point above is that comparing them via a non-existing simultaneity across frames is comparing apples and Macs. Paradoctor (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The relativistic predictions hinge, quite simply in fact, on the reality of light speed invariance, and light speed invariance can and will only be validated if and only if the relativity of lengths and the relativity of simultaneity are validated too. Otherwise we are literally putting the horses behind the cart regarding accurate measurement. Modocc (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"only be validated if and only if" That's a claim. Where's is the argument supporting that claim? Paradoctor (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Relativity is primarily a deductive theory such that if either the predicted relativity of lengths (as in not confirmed) or the predicted relativity of simultaneity are falsified (likewise), then the postulate is falsified. Conversely, if the postulate is falsified, then its supposed consequences are too. -Modocc (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To your last statement; Please refer to my quote from Delbert Larson above. All the historical inventors of length contraction had a similar "worldview" (Larsons's term) centered around "observation/measurement" as the new critria for what is "real." (See my frequent quotes of Einstein denying realism.) ('To hell with classic realism,' was the attitude. What each frame "sees" is now 'what is real.') Just a brief comment on the core of the matter. The world does not change with how you look at it. That is "paranoid schizophrenia with a delusion of grandeur," my diagnosis of idealists in general. [Classical example: If you think that a tree falling in the forest makes no sound (vibration transmitted through the air) unless some "observer" hears it (even squirrels and birds??,)... then you are an idealist. Sort it out for the claims of length contraction!] LCcritic (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm capable of recognizing the logistical deductive Vogon poetry just as much as the next guy, so I know garbage when I hear it, see it and I'm willing to toss myself out into nothingness because of it in pursuit of understanding our reality, but you are talking about a complete paradigm shift, and with it, the casual application of Galilean concepts of absolute distances and simultaneity does not in itself reject the relativistic universe which itself completely rejects these classic concepts as unreal. Relativity, whether real or not, is an objective distinct scientific empirically-based theory that embraces, with its limitations, the reality of a pseudoEuclidean spacetime. That said, your sense of normalcy will likely be restored pretty soon anyway. -Modocc (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"To your last statement" Modocc or me? This is confusing, as replying directly below and one additional level indented generally means you're replying to the post directly above yours.

"The world does not change with how you look at it." That is exactly what relativity says, that the laws of nature do not depend on the observer. What you are not realizing is that the length of a body (as opposed to its proper length) is not a law of nature. Paradoctor (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"What you are not realizing is that the length of a body (as opposed to its proper length) is not a law of nature." So proper use of the term "proper" will clarify all misconceptions about length contraction. Amazing! All it takes is proper understanding of the word proper. That leaves the question of realism ignored. Just like "proper indentation" will clarify who is talking to whom. (Try comprehending the context when proper indentation is violated, however inadvertently.) See, there is a major difference in "worldviews" between those whom Larson mentioned above, all of whom thought that physical objects actually, physically contract (classic length contraction) and those who have seen no evidence of that, or, more importantly, a physical (as in "physics") explanation of it... not just differences in measurements... which of course can differ even as the object measured stays the same... the relativity effect, aka, the philosophy of shrinking objects... due to different frames of reference. The length of Earth's diameters were determined by the laws of nature... mostly by gravity, never to be altered by theoretical passing relativistic frames of observation. The 4-D model of SR has lost its reference to "the real world," which does not change as observations of it change. How many ways must a realist say this before relativity idealists "get" that they subscribe to a "new, improved, modern, scientific, non-Euclidean" version of good old idealism? Btw, that is in fact a rhetorical question. LCcritic (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Ps; Modoc, your sarcastic sense of humor (if that was it) really does not contribute to the serious criticism of length contraction here. "That said, your sense of normalcy will likely be restored pretty soon anyway." I hope that was not as nasty as it sounded. There is nothing wrong with my "sense of normalcy." It helps me put claims of a shrinking Earth diameter in "proper" perspective. And I know, realistically, that each frame does not create an "equally valid" description of all real, physical objects observed. LCcritic (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a scientific realist that relies on the existence of both models and empirical data, neither of which automatically determine what is real or not simply because of a simplistic definition or understanding of realism, thus I always require careful weighing of the evidence. When sizing up relativity, be careful because its been argued repeatedly to no avail that contractions are not "due" to different frames of reference, because the objects do not actually change, but are observed to be different nevertheless because we are supposed to be measuring different slices of an abstract unchanging invariant spacetime per the supposed existence of four dimensional strips of world lines. Some creative consideration of its alternative non-Galilean universe is thus required to fully appreciate and understand relativity's objectivity. Thus I have not rejected it based on realism, but on whether or not it's been empirically verified and actually accurate. -Modocc (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"proper use of the term" Don't tell me you're not even aware that words generally have more than one meaning, and that nouns qualified by an adjective almost never have the same meaning as the unqualified noun. Especially in technical contexts like this one. "Length" and "proper length" have explicitly defined meanings in relativity different from each other as well as from general usage. If you criticize a theory, not using terms the way they are defined in that theory is a sign of either incompetence or dishonesty, especially after the definitions have been pointed out to you repeatedly.

You have been informed about proper WP:INDENTation more than once. Your steadfast refusal to do like the Romans do hints at an antisocial tendency. We're talking about expected behavior that even the teenagers in here generally manage!

"The length of Earth's diameters were determined by the laws of nature" That's just a restatement of your assertion that "it will never fit".

I've provided an explicit argument for the compatibility of length contraction with realism. You have not addressed any of the steps in that argument. If my argument was wrong, at least one step in it would have to be wrong. Your diffidence in addressing actual statements, covered up by repeats of your vague misconceptions, does nothing to support your position. Paradoctor (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You continue to avoid the obvious distinction between apparent and physical contraction. Realists grant the former but not the latter. For instance, Earth's diameter obviously does not physically contract (that is realism) even though it might appear to contract (as claimed by SR,) as I have already beaten to death, though you still will not acknowledge the difference. "Your steadfast refusal to do like the Romans do hints at an antisocial tendency." As I have admitted many times, my computer technical skills are at minimal level. I am an old man who came late to the wonderful world of computers and the internet. Your long history here of spanking me for it shows an extreme insensitivity on your part. I do the best I can dealing with the extremely complex maze and trying to apply the technical skills required of all contributers here. Please get off my case about it! LCcritic (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Paradoctor's compatibility of length contraction with realism argument is... simply the proposition that the relativistic postulates are true and there is not much new under our insignificant sun with that, even though the theory's two most extraordinary claims have yet to be empirically validated, thus I didn't think I was being harsh when I was not so subtlety referring to the normality of the theory's eventual utter scientific rejection in favor of a classical Euclidean paradigm. -Modocc (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Realism: The world does not change with how you look at it.

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)

"...clearly falsifying length contraction,.." No it doesn't. Like I've said before, the skepticism of denying black swans (i.e. no one has measured an apparently morphed earth yet, or the relativity of simultaneity) does not falsify them. As for objective realism, the results of one's measurements depends largely on how the object is being measured, see systemic bias. -Modocc (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. Earth measures the probe to be 10 meters from its first sighting and all the while the retrieval craft is collecting it and bringing it back to Earth (now inside the cargo bay, which now measures only 10 meters, though it left Earth, as constructed, 20 meters long, so that the physical length (not just apparent length) of the probe would fit in. Insistence that there is no meaningful "at the same time" measurements throughout the project,... insisting on "the relativity of simultaneity" according to the dogmatic assertion that there is no such 'thing' as "at the same time" is in complete denial of the specifics of the example I have offered. Btw, did you read my example of simultaneity in the talk page on the subject? Also, SR will predict that, as the returning craft and probe slow down in preparation for landing, the probe and the bay containing it will gradually expand back to their original proper length of 20 meters. What kind of physics do you suppose is involved in all this physical contraction and expansion? Fun with a 4-D "spacetime model" with no "real" change in the physical length of the objects involved?LCcritic (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Ps; clearly different ways of measuring an object will not effect the physical object itself. Agreed? Btw, I know that you do not accept the constancy of the speed of light, and I still await your argument; but my challenge is to those who do accept that constant: Make a logical argument from "The speed of light is constant"... to "... therefore physical objects actually contract in length."LCcritic (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys378/LectureNotes/VectorsTensorsSR.pdf Pages 21-32 contain what you asked for. Paradoctor (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion on page 32, emphasis added:

"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."

That should close the case, again. - DVdm (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't settle the issue, for me at least, for an object appearing rotated does not equate with the object not being contracted in the reference frame (the length of which is determined by the Lorentz transformation). Simultaneity is relative, but it still exists in each frame thus an analogous conflation of appearance and reality happens when students confuse Galilean path lengths which vary with velocity with the instantaneous distances for each inertial frame. Regardless of the confusion that such justifications cause, [It "...is a real physical phenomenon..." thus] the difference between the paradigms is that distances and event simultaneity are classically invariant, but are clearly not with SR. In any case, LCCritic is comparing apples with oranges, finding that the paradigms differ and rejecting one because it's not the same as the other when in fact only reality exists a priori and not our sometimes fallible models of it. -Modocc (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It does settle the issue about what Wikipedia should say in its article about the matter. Of course it will probably never settle the issue of whether some amateurs can wrap their minds around it. Yes, some of us might not like this at all, but that is not relevant for Wikipedia: see wp:UNDUE, wp:FRINGE, wp:NOR. We can scream and holler, squeal and whine about it as much as we want, as long as we confine the noise to our user talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I skimmed your excerpt too rapidly, completely read past the actual point you were trying to make, with the emphasis in bold and completely got the points you and the author were making backwards. Yes, the text clearly states that the length contraction is real even if it appears not to be. Enough said! :-) --Modocc (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or is it? - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(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)

Pages 21-32 of this contain the logical argument you asked for. Citing the acceptable mainstream texts is what Wikipedia stands for. Sidestream is this way. - DVdm (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A relativity physicist is an expert in what they are told in relativity texts in the course of getting their credentials. At best, this is a display of profound ignorance. You are partially correct that a purely philosophical question such as, "what is real?" is outside of the realm of physics. However, your error is in taking a philosophical construct (the "real" world vs the one we interact with) and confusing it with the definition of "real" as it applies to physics. Your argument then becomes circular when you claim that an object must not contract, because that would violate (in your mind) the philosophical concept of objective realism. In short, you are claiming expertise in a field, while simultaneously exhibiting profound ignorance of nearly all aspects of that field.

If an effect such as length contraction can be measured or observed, then it is within the realm of subjects that physics can address. Now, to summarize: physicists say that if a bullet which evaporates after one second (measured, naturally, in its rest frame) were fired at a target two light seconds away at a sufficient fraction of c, the target would be hit by the bullet before it evaporated (a "real" effect by any rational observation IMHO). From the frame of reference of the target the bullet would fly for more than two seconds, and from the frame of reference of the bullet the distance traveled would be less than one light-second. Which frame is more "real"? Physicists say they are all equally valid. If philosophers have differing opinions about a reality which transcends observation that is fine, but do not expect physicists to take you seriously when you try to apply this philosophy back into the observable world. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Drawing the line

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.

• Any changes to articles you have proposed so far have been rejected by unanimous editorial consensus.
• You have no further proposals.
• Discussing subject matter and original research have no place here. "Here" means not just articles and their talk pages, it applies to user talk pages as well. That this discussion has been permitted until now has to be credited to aforementiond tolerance. Let me be crystal clear: The entire discussion following rejection of your proposed edits was against policy. Whether this can be justified by WP:IAR, I'll let others judge.
• Your behavior has made it clear that we cannot expect any positive contributions from you.

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==

“If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.”

A “Criticisms of relativity” section explaining that length contraction (LC) is based on differences in observational frames not reflecting differences in objects observed (idealism vs realism) would improve the reader’s understanding of the philosophical basis for SR.

“Use your common sense over anything else.” Special relativity (SR) insists on creating a "mainstream" exception to that rule and editors here have created a “mainstream version rule" which insists on a principle by which Earth’s diameter actually does physically contract, by the same "principle*" as contracting rods, poles, trains and the distances between stars... obviously in total violation of common sense, but even such basic criticism is not allowed. *('Lengths depend on which frame of reference measures them, period. End of discussion.') The above rule “allows for consensus to adapt over time, allowing rules to change.” The ‘no criticism of relativity allowed’ rule (i.e., not mainstream) is in dire need of such change. “Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing.” (Except in the case of shrinking objects and distances!)

“Rules are only enforced when people agree that they should be enforced.” I suggest a discussion of this “should” (or not) regarding a change allowing criticism of “the philosophy of shrinking objects and distances”... LC.

“Wikipedia's rules are thus not 'rules' in the traditional sense, but standing agreements that are subject to constant re-evaluation (see Wikipedia:Consensus can change).” I suggest that a re-evaluation and change will benefit Wikipedia, allowing a more fair presentation of criticism of relativity, in the article talk pages and in edits to articles.

“Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum.” — Darwi Odrade[6] Good advice for the ‘physics fascists’ here who make the rules against criticism of relativity.

“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).”

“No rule shall constrain the improvement of the Wikipedia.” It would be improved by allowing substantive “Criticism of the theory of relativity.” That section is presently a sham written by "mainstream" editors dead set against (deleting) any cogent “argument against.” LCcritic (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a common misuse of IAR. What you fail to appreciate is that, by now, there is established consensus that your proposed edits are detrimental to Wikipedia. Your claims fail WP:V via WP:RS. The only way this consensus is going to change is when your ideas are published in reliable sources.

If there is anything unclear in this explanation, ask now, because I'll consider any further attempts at pushing your views without demonstrating a clear understanding of what I said, and showing compliance with these rules, as crossing the line. Paradoctor (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Paradoctor, this extended discussion has been carried out on a user talk page. LCcritic has complied with a community request to keep their fringe viewpoint out of the article and article talk spaces. As such, I find it unlikely that the community would support a block for the contents of this user talk page. From a policy perspective, as this discussion is at least cosmetically about how a philosophical concept applies to a physics article and does not violate WP:FAKEARTICLE, I do not think it is an egregious violation (with the exception of some personal attacks, which seem to have died out naturally). VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Errm, WP:FAKEARTICLE is completely off the mark, and I don't recall anyone claiming otherwise. What does fit is "topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful" [...] "is in complete disregard of reliable sources". Also, ""Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself". And the last entry in the table at WP:UPYES: "Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion.".

The reason that user talk pages are given more leeway is to foster an open, collaborative work environment. But this rests on the assumption that the editor in question actually contributes anything. Take a look at the edit history, and you see a flawless specimen of the WP:SPA variety. LCcritic is here for the sole purpose of promoting his OR, and there is no positive contribution to be expected from accomodating her or him.

If the previous discussion hasn't made it clear, LCcritic's last move clinched it. LCcritic asked for an argument, then promptly ignored it without so much as a "by your leave". Discussion has been shown to be futile and any further effort spent on LCcritic would be wasted. Can you honestly say otherwise?

P. S.: I would point LCcritic to other venues where discussion of this kind is welcome, but in LCcritic's own words: "I am" [...] "banned from science forums". LCcritic apparently confuses us with Little Bighorn. Paradoctor (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

""I am" [...] "banned from science forums"]] Almost all critics of relativity are eventually banned from "science" forums (I've made a study of it,) because all relativity critics are, by definition (according to 'relativity physics fascists'... just a little humor...), "cranks" or much worse. Science has little to do with name calling. Banning/blocking criticism is still censorship, which has no place in honest scientific discussion. This encyclopedia should present a fair account of every field of science, including reasonable published criticisms of relativity. LCcritic (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"scientific discussion" We are not a scientific journal. We are not interested in conducting scientific discussion. That is what scientific journals are for.

"reasonable" Not a requirement here. We report about the insane as well.

"published" Your stuff has not been published.

"should present" [...] "criticisms of relativity": We do. Paradoctor (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted "published criticisms" subsection and added as "New Section," not part of Paradoctor's "drawing the line" section. LCcritic (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Serious question - are you attempting to prove Paradoctor's point with this response? It occurs to me that your main goal may be to get blocked or topic banned from Wikipedia as a "badge of honor." I can think of no other satisfactory reason why you would so consistently attempt to use empirical arguments to promote a philosophical argument. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Noose" We have an entire article on that. The rest, if it hasn't already been adressed, is self-published original research.

"dozens of additional publications and websites criticizing SR" Even in that you're wrong. There are thousands of publications.

That's it. Paradoctor (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"The rest, if it hasn't already been addressed, is self-published original research." I ask all readers here to agree or disagree with that statement. Brushing it all aside does not address the sources I referenced. It does fit with the implicit doctrine of "there is no legitimate criticism of relativity." Still, no way to run an encyclopedia, which is why I am asking for discussion of the "Ignore All Rules" allowance which might improve fair coverage of criticisms of relativity (length contraction in this specific case.) VQuakr, my "main goal" is to bring fair coverage of criticisms of relativity into the text of Wikipedia.LCcritic (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Ps. "Even in that you're wrong. There are thousands of publications." I meant credible publications. I thought that was obvious. But then we must define "credible." Let's compromise and call it hundreds. Then we can go on to discuss whose credentials are valid, from the relativity community's point of view, of course. No realists allowed a voice. LCcritic (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"The rest, if it hasn't already been addressed, is self-published original research." I ask all readers here to agree or disagree with that statement. The three relevant sources you linked are quite clearly self-published (or at a minimum, lacking editorial oversight). They are not original research unless you authored one of them. Are you really, seriously expecting wikia.com to be taken seriously in this context by anyone except yourself? I meant credible publications. I thought that was obvious. Then why didn't you cite credible publications? But then we must define "credible." Here you go. Moving on. Are you going to strike your embarrassingly outdated Michio Kaku quote now that it has been pointed out to you as such? Before you do, though, maybe you should browse the publications listed at Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly#Peer reviewed publications. I do not see a bunch of "physics fascists" (I will join Paradoctor in endorsing a topic ban for you the next time you use that term BTW) rushing to blacklist the scientists that brought forth their findings. I see people openly, excitedly, and skeptically investigating a remarkable experimental result. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As soon as we stop responding here about technicalities, LCcritic will have no other option than to stop repeating his wish to put inappropriate OR/SYNTH content in article space. He already agreed to stop using article talk pages for that, so he will be confined to this user talk page. Filing for a topic ban will then be moot. So, again, as I suggested a while ago, perhaps it's time to let it rest, and I propose that at least we WP:JUSTDROPIT: "If you want an argument to stop, stop arguing." DVdm (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is best too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the "Ignore All Rules" exception for improving Wikipedia a sham?

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)

IAR is only distinguishable from anarchy when it is still subject to consensus. In that spirit, do editors here seriously and honestly contend that none of the critical sources I cited above are valid? Correct. I linked the relevant guideline, which was not written by the "relativity community" (whatever that is). no real interest in improving the encyclopedia to include even basic, very sound criticism. You could start by providing a reliable source that describes the criticism as "sound." Kaku was not "wrong"; he was simply reporting (albeit in a pop-science tone) on a contemporary, surprising experimental result. If that result had been independently verified instead of retracted, a new physical standard model would have been developed that matched the new (as well as volumes of older) experimental data. For someone who claims expertise in the philosophy of science, you are markedly ignorant of how science in general works. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"For someone..." What an insulting comment! Isn't there some "rule" against such disrespectful personal insults? They do not contribute to science in any way! I spent two years as a grad student teaching undergraduate students of science (in a special studies course for the gifted) "how science really works." Part of that course included the fundamentals of epistemology. Part of the course was on logic as a tool for scientific investigation. You, as many others here, mistake disagreement for ignorance. No one questions relativity and remains credible! That is the first rule for editors of relativity articles in Wikipedia. 63.155.147.158 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Forgot signature: 63.155.147.158 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Forgot to log in. I'm old. I forget things. But I still have common sense (and a high IQ score)... not an asset for aspiring students of relativity! (A little kidding, for you 'too serious' ones, who are told to leave common sense behind as the price of 'understanding' relativity. LCcritic (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"One keeps oneself neat out of mere decency, mere sanity, awareness of other people. And finally even that goes, and one dribbles unashamed." The Day Before the Revolution Paradoctor (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Paradoctor's replies here are all either whining about my incorrect indentations and technical reference incompetence or beating me up about various other protocol violations or a variety of ad hominem personal attacks, complete with links to pictures of historical events characterizing me as a Hitler on a soapbox preaching the Nazi doctrine (or was that DVdm?... same method of operation) or Custer at "The last stand," fighting and dying for a lost cause here at the mainstream rule of relativity. Now I'm the villain/fool in "The Day Before the Revolution." (Did I forget any?). I thought the quality of the project to edit an encyclopedia was more respectful than such childish character assassination as as Paradocter consistently "dribbles" out here, "unashamed." No substantive scholarly reply to my post above , or previous ones, at all. Just smear tactics. Very insulting. Consistently. How is he NOT violating the protocol of civility here? LCcritic (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"A little kidding, for you 'too serious' ones" Dishing it out, but can't take it? Tsk, tsk... Paradoctor (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It was very mild "kidding," considering that it is commonly said that one is required to "leave common sense at the door" when entering "the Magic Theater" of relativity... and swallow the belief that physical objects shrink on account of differences in observational frames of reference and the constancy of the speed of light, as per SR... Or that some magical, ontologically unspecified entity, "spacetime" is curved by mass and in turn guides masses in their curved paths, as per GR. Nothing like your constant barrage of ad hominem attacks on me personally in obvious violation of civility protocol here. Ps; Still 'no substantive scholarly reply,' as above. LCcritic (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"substantive scholarly reply" Your excretions don't rate one. Paradoctor (talk) 18:28, 3 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)

Back to Basics

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)

Riemann: "Any two straight lines in a plane intersect." True or false?,i.e., is the geometric/cosmological basis of of relativity true or false? Next question: Do any editors of Wikipedia care, when citing sources, whether or not the geometric basis of relativity is true or not? LCcritic (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Who told you that axioms should be true or false? Axioms aren't true or false. Systems of axioms are consistent or inconsistent, and, as models, they are useful or useless.

Riemann's set of axioms happens to be useful:

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.

It also happens to be consistent:

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.

Note:

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.

You don't seem to be very familiar with these basics.

And by the way, note the specification of "general" in "...through Einstein's general theory of relativity." Length contraction already happens on page 2 of special relativity, and is in no way non-Euclidean geometry related.

I really don't think we can help you. This is all so boringly basic indeed. But, by all means feel free to take wp:TLW. - DVdm (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really entertaining that you have a Wiki guideline for every occasion. I enjoyed reading "The Last Word," creative/cynical essay... Another of your innuendos projecting your judgement on me (Like I must have the last word.) I am very familiar with the basics I quoted. I did not say that SR's 'length contraction' was a direct consequence of the non-Euclidean redefinition of geometry, denying Euclid's parallel lines. I went "back to basics" (see title) to the root of the geometric/cosmological error of relativity as based the imaginary re-invention of cosmology to accommodate a variety of choices for "the shapes of space," depending on the cosmologist's aesthetic, mathematical and philosophical preference:

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)

"I taught logic" Since you're shitting neither me nor DVdm nor anyone else, you necessarily shit yourself.

"I must have the last word." Yes, we know you do. Paradoctor (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So, more juvenile name calling. Why not just make it a chant, "Liar, liar, pants on fire?" I actually did teach "Logic and the Scientific Method." (Also, a course on the Philosophy of Science, including the philosophical basis of relativity.) But I've said that a few times already, and all you've got is that I am "shitting" you and myself. It is quite amazing that you claim to know me and my academic history better than I do. But it just shows your true colors, your immaturity as a very hostile basher with nothing but ad hominem attacks, as always. What a great environment for civil discussion of what aught to be included in the encyclopedia! Meanwhile, back to topic, it IS (logic demands it!) either true or false that "Any two straight lines in a plane intersect." Parallel lines by definition do not intersect. Denying Euclid's fifth postulate does not bend straight lines (yes, there are still straight lines) and force them to converge and intersect. Those that do are not "parallel lines." But relativity insists that one abandon all reason, logic, and common sense and just swallow the party line as a new* geometry/cosmology is invented. *(Speaking of the history of science.) A good place to start is to believe that the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line, since a whole new* geometry was invented that denies straight lines. Show me a line (arc) connecting two points on a sphere's surface and I'll show you the straight line through the sphere connecting those points. 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? I think not. But of course adding that discussion to the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article is entirely out of the question. LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Next time when you fly from Portland to Rome, ask your pilot to save some time and, instead of following a silly great circle or a stupid loxodrome, to logically go straight through the sphere. - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Damn DVdm, I didn't know you were so cold-blooded. What do you have against the poor pilot?

"discussion of what aught to be included" Already finished, result: your crap doesn't belong here. You're shitting yourself believing otherwise. Paradoctor (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What do I have against the poor pilot? Why, logic, of course. Logic alone refutes great circles. Logic refutes spherical astronomy. Logic refutes geodesy. Logic refutes science. Logic refutes engineering. Logic refutes the World. Didn't your Professor of Logic explain that? - DVdm (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea logic was so dangerous. I swear, when they started talking about propositions and statements, I thought that was about people uniting in love. But now I see that logic is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I mean, I thought E=mc^2 was bad. But it pales against the sheer lunacy of modus ponens. We should restrict its use in peacetime to uninhabitated areas. On another planet. If LCcritic was to deploy his logic there, we would only lose an uninhabitated planet. Paradoctor (talk) 21:23, 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."]

"editors" You are not an editor. You are not interested in "improving the encyclopedia". You're only here to push your pseudoscientific babble after being booted from every reputable science board this side of Sagittarius A*. To Wikipedia, you're no different from any 419er ever.

Ps; (For any/all besides 'B & B'*) Put two points on the surface of a sphere. What is the shortest distance between them?LCcritic (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A ray of light. Paradoctor (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

'I am not an editor' (no signature.) Really?! I am an editor who disagrees with you. So you vilify me. As a realist I can say with authority that the travel of light (which can not go through a planet) does not determine the distance through that sphere, connecting the two points. Then you tell me what I'm not interested in. I was a psychologist, and that does not help in your diagnosis,i.e., that you believe you are an expert in my interests. (419er ?? Not up on the lingo. Say what you mean. Not here. On your own page.) PLEASE. LCcritic (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No user WP:OWNs anything here, which means you don't, either. Get used to it, this is not your personal playground. If you don't like the game, the solution is easy: Go home.

"PLEASE" Please what? Please add your babble to an article? Of the 20 or so editors you pestered, not one thinks that is a good idea. Please discuss your ideas? You had your chance, and you blew it. Please like you? I think I speak for all of us when I say we'll like your backside as soon as we get to see it.

"lingo" You mean, you want potty training?. Paradoctor (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Please what?" The request was stated in plain English: "Say what you mean. Not here. On your own page.) PLEASE." (You obviously mean to continue your nasty personal attacks on me.) You consistently violate civility protocol. I asked you to quit posting your nasty violations of civility here... all personal attacks. All criticism of relativity is considered "babble" and no basic criticism of relativity is presently allowed, even in the article, "Criticisms of the theory of relativity." I thought it reasonable to change that policy by presenting cogent published criticisms. I have no idea why you are allowed to continue in violation of civility protocol. I still don't know "proper protocol" for "where to complain" but I will find out. Meanwhile I have bolded the relevant text above, so you can personally compare your obvious abuse to the guidlines forbidding it.LCcritic (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

"In spite of present policy" Oh, I'm sorry! I did not really realize that your problem is not so much with relativity, as it is with Wikipedia policy. If I had understood this clearly at an earlier point in time, this might have spared us some needless to-and-fro. You see, we can't change relativity for you, as we don't control it. There are too many people with an agenda backing it. But our policies are only backed by a few thousand, picked at random from the sqishy fringes of the Internet. Changing their minds will be no problem. Please go to WP:Village Pump (policy), and lay down the law. There are currently only 2765 accounts watching that page, so you will have no problem bringing them in line. I'll wait here and watch. Paradoctor (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made it abundantly clear in all my contributions exactly what 'problem' realism has with relativity. The fact is that no such criticism is considered legitimate by Wikipedia policy. Example from "Criticisms..." lead: "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community." How totally presumptuous of the editor to speak for the whole "scientific community" when he obviously means the mainstream relativity community! "Even today!," the poor misguided idiots will not go away! (See my list of critical publications, re-labeled above on this page.) You are clearly not to be taken seriously, and I will delete any further posts by you on this page. LCcritic (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Published Criticism of Relativity

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)

In spite of any editorial discretion we may have, your synthesis of disparate texts, such as your interpretation of Godel's observations, cannot be added. Neither can any quotes from articles lacking adequate peer-review: self-published works (blogs), various works published under crank affiliations (yes cranks do exist), or papers included as a record of a presentation amongst others. As has been pointed out numerous times, such sourcing which is not sufficiently peer-reviewed doesn't meet any encyclopedic criteria or standards. Unfortunately, theorists often make the mistake that because they have "eliminated" an alternative theory or alternatives then what is left (their theory) must be true, but models must also stand on their own accord. I could bring forth many examples of this theorist-centrist problem, but it is one of our greatest failings, which is why the scientific method and admissions of fallibility and falsifiability are important. As for the underlying physics touched on, mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2 is certainly required from the empirical evidence; the equivalence is not incorrect as some cranks would believe. As I'm sure you are aware, relativity does include invariants which are in themselves are said to be absolutes, thus the abstract Minkowski spacetime is a model that meets the criteria of objective realism, even though it is not Galilean and its spacetime is highly abstract. In other words, the Galilean spacetime that we have a posteriori knowledge is not applicable, but you nevertheless standby it and thus strawman the Standard Model; a model which fails anyway on its own accord. I agree, of course, that the colossal edifice of relativity will come crashing down... much more rapidly than erected... but only because scientists, putting the cranks' failures aside, as a community are able to construct a rigorous and enlightened model via the scientific empirically-verified peer-reviewed methodology. --Modocc (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Modocc, I do not dispute Einstein's most famous equation. The Bomb's yield was about as predicted, they say. Nor do I dispute that the math of GR is more precisely predictive than the Newtonian model for gravity. But as you said, "spacetime is highly abstract," yet GR, with no ontology whatsoever as to *what it IS* claims that mass makes IT curve, and IT, in turn guides other masses in curved paths. But as for SR, as you know, the argument from realism (not allowed)against length contraction is that "real physical objects" (and the distances between them) do not change lengths dependent on different frames of reference from which they might be measured. Goldberg ("Ask The Physicist") claims that a fast enough ship could reach Andromeda in 28 years... on account of time dilation/length contraction,... even though it's a 2.5 million year trip for light, so the ship would need to travel about 98 thousand times faster than light. Hmmm. But 'truth in science' must be set aside for a universe of stars and galaxies distributed variously according to each and every possible frame of reference, i.e., no "real, as is world" independent of "observation" (even in the most general sense as frames of reference.)LCcritic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is empirically known that accelerated clocks slow down, thus the journey will be taking less measured time according to their ship's clocks. Moreover, a single observer can visit all the reference frames, take measurements and verify or falsify relativity. Of course, this has not been done with any rigor, but it can and the results of such experiments will be a posteriori knowledge and not a priori knowledge. As you know, I've predicted on my talk page that we will be measuring the absolute rest state and I will be publishing, but would you know that I've got my hands full right now with far more important projects. When it rains it pours... :-) -Modocc (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Modocc, We all know that clocks slow down as 'timekeepers' after they have been accelerated to a higher velocity than a clock which 'stayed home.' Relativity theorists call it "time dilation" without identifying 'what time IS' much less how it 'expands,' i.e., "dilates." Of course the physical process of 'ticking' slows down. The GPS system depends on all those fine adjustments between clocks. So the clock on Goldberg's ship to Andromeda will only record 28 years, even while Earth orbits the Sun over 2.5 million times. Then you have the math reciprocal of 'time dilation,' which is 'length contraction,' so the faster you go and the slower your clock 'ticks' the shorter the distance to Andromeda. That is how you can get there 98 thousand times faster than light. Just "ask" Dave Goldberg. (He will not answer me.) He claims to be The Expert Physicist regarding SR. Just a side note: Epistemology of course is the study of how we "know" what we claim to know. The 28 year trip to Andromeda is very clearly bogus. But many "SR experts" are 'out there' and still writing textbooks about it for future relativity 'experts.' (Not just picking on Dave.) And yet the distances between galaxies will not contract "for" future high speed interstellar travelers. It will still take well over 2.5 million years to travel to Andromeda. LCcritic (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding, "we will be measuring the absolute rest state..." It looks like the Higgs Field is the new name for the once disproven "aether," now that CERN has verified the field as evidential, at least as little 'pieces' ("god particles") of the omnipresent field. That would also of course explain the mechanics of gravity if all space is filled with 'particles' all in close articulation... like ping-pong balls in a tube. Tap one at one end and another one pops out of the other end. Distance doesn't matter in the transmission process. (Just a little "think tank" talk... nowhere close to inclusion in this encyclopedia.) LCcritic (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming a ship could travel at near light speed (it never travels faster), to us it does take the ship millions of years, but for the passengers, like the clock, they only age 28 years since their biological processes slow down too. With Galilean relativity such events are still simultaneous in all frames, millions of our years to 28 of theirs, and distances are absolute. AFAIK, a perfect vacuum is void of energy, so there is nothing to tap, but gravity is best explained by the near omnipresence of energetic gravitons however. -Modocc (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Length contraction as the reciprocal of time dilation

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)

Our Wikipedia's policies do have purpose, and these pages are for improving our encyclopedia of knowledge, but there are limitations to our sources and what we can discuss and publish. Certainly we both believe relativity to be an untenable abstraction, a TOE boondoggle, a re-invention of space and time that conflates them as if they are one resulting in flawed models. Unfortunately, our literate community has become very much a pedantic echo-chamber that too often ignores the fact that relativity's predictions which falsify the Galilean relativity of our reality: relativity of simultaneity and frame-dependent length contraction (not to be confused with Galilean invariant contractions) have not been demonstrated, so relativity has not been thoroughly tested and therefore it is not the case that it should be accepted as real instead. Critics being right though doesn't change what we do here on Wikipedia of course, which is to publish notable criticisms (whether right or wrong) from reliable sources and these sources, fortunately, do change over time because of scientific realism. Again, I'll repeat, what is "real" will always be a slippery slope, thus it's unlikely my position will change, so I won't be wasting yours or anyone else's time commenting any further upon realism and whether or not models are objective enough. Moreover, the best defense of Galilean relativity is a good offense, but I've plenty to do before I can get my own works published. -Modocc (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Modocc: re "relativity has not been thoroughly tested". See this and feel free to refute one by one . - DVdm (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

By that, you are strawmanning our reality though, for you should be reviewing the evidence presented in our articles on length contraction and relativity of simultaneity. Good luck finding anything that resembles relativity of simultaneity. As for length contractions, the one's measured thus far can be attributed to Galilean invariant physics. It is only the predictions that falsify Galilean relativity that matter. -Modocc (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that length contraction is routinely measured by muons being able to reach the ground, that is of course, unless you think that time dilation is shammy bogus as well. Indeed, if you accept the concepts of—and difference between—proper time and coordinate time, then there is no other option than to accept the fact that muons indeed "measure" a shorter atmospheric path than we do. Likewise, if you accept measurements of the invariance of the speed of light speed, then there is no way around relativity of simultaneity.

And of course, also good luck finding anything in our article Gravitation that resembles hard evidence for you and I falling from a tower when dropped. No evidence present. No doubt a sham too - DVdm (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

From my reference desk challenge (yes, it turned out to be out of place) on length contraction as applied to Earth's diameter and the depth of its atmosphere: [Muons traveling through our atmosphere have higher velocities than lab-accelerated muons, so they decay more slowly ("live longer") and therefore travel further than lab muons, so they can reach Earth's surface. SR claims that the depth/thickness of the atmosphere contracts "for those muons." But the atmosphere remains about 1000 km all around Earth at all times, not contracted by what incoming muons would "observe." Different observations can not change physical objects or distances. SR claims that it does... ] Damn! Forgot to sign again.LCcritic (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good, :-), but... relativity does not claim that observations change the object, it does however claim the physical properties of objects differ with different reference frame observations. Of course, that observations change what is observed is more of a quantum physic's paradox. I know I might seem to be nit-picking on this point, sorry if it comes across that way, but it's extremely important to get right and it's relevant to physics in general because even with Galilean relativity, properties such as magnetism do change with reference frame. -Modocc (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Without frame-dependent length contractions (material rulers that are shrunken with reference frame) and relativity of simultaneity (events the simultaneity of which are shown to be skewed and frame-dependent) light-speed invariance has not been established. So the theory was dead on arrival I'm afraid, and good thing too, for I've the presence of mind to firmly refute it with my work, which others, for various reasons, have failed to do of course. --Modocc (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"...relativity does not claim that observations change the object, it does however claim the physical properties of objects differ with different reference frame observations." This is double talk. 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.LCcritic (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not doubletalk. The 20 foot ladder must be accelerated before it fits into the 10 foot barn. It therefore is said to contract locally due to the acceleration. That is not the same as claiming it is contracted because one happens to be observing the event. The rooster in the barn [already flying through it] is supposed to see the ladder expand instead, due to the ladder's deceleration. That you do not seem to understand the difference between changes in reference frames and physical changes is why you have been getting push back from me and others. -Modocc (talk) 20:02, 16 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)

"Yet no one claims that Earth is then "accelerated," causing its diameter to contract in the direction of its motion...". That is correct, because of the relativistic Lorenz transformation which changes referenced coordinates, the Earth does not need to be accelerated. This is because Galilean relativity and relativity both distinguish, mathematically, between coordinate change and physical change. Since I don't want this discussion moved to my talk page and I'm done here, go ahead and delete it if that is your wish. --Modocc (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So you ignore the challenge to 'deal with it' and just cut and run. Your argument was that length contraction is caused by acceleration... a physical effect on contracted objects. But if it applies to a ladder/pole, it must also apply to Earth's diameter. Like Martin Hogbin insisted, that Earth actually does shrink in the above scenario. We agree that it doesn't, yet mainstream length contraction insists that it does. Your credibility is close to zero with your claim to have proof for variable lightspeed. You must be very "busy" if such a Nobel prize worthy proof is not your first priority. I was just trying to bring a minimum of common sense from realism in argument against the philosophy of shrinking objects (Earth, for example) and contracted distances between objects (stars/galaxies for example.) Bye. Yes, I will delete the b.s. conversation above. LCcritic (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

LC True or False Quiz

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)

Questions like these should be on the science reference desk not this talk page. They are not about a possible improvement to the article. Articles are based on reliable sources not editors arguments. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Been there; done that... "not appropriate." "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Wikipedia policy does not allow debate on length contraction, even inclusion of sources like those cited in my "Published criticisms of relativity" section above. I find a lot of debate however on personal "talk" pages. Yet no one will take the Quiz above, defend mainstream LC, and look like an idiot. I've looked all over Wiki for "the right place" for criticism of length contraction. It was called "forum shopping." Still no criticism from realism allowed. All any editor has to do is call a source "fringe" (all relativity criticism from realism, as above, is said to fall into that category), and it is not allowed. And "The Red Pen of Doom," who can rule on my request has still not answered my policy change request at the village pump.LCcritic (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the editor TheRedPenOfDoom has no special authority at the village pump or anywhere else. I have worked with him before and value his input in discussions as he has exhibited a high degree of competence, but neither he nor any other individual editor has the authority to override consensus developed by a larger group. You have not presented any sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS as applied to a science article, and asking at other places is not going to change that. These sources fail not because of their content (that they are critical of relativity), but because of their lack of reliability. You can post queries about general questions at the reference desk; where you have gotten into trouble is when you argue with the answers you are given.

No one is taking your quiz because that is not why we are here. Your posting the quiz is yet another indicator that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"These sources fail... because of their lack of reliability." Please show in the case of each source cited how each is determined to be unreliable. Saying that they are unreliable because they challenge relativity does not make it so. I am "here to (help) build an encyclopedia" which includes cogent argument/criticism of length contraction, as exemplified in those sources you call unreliable.LCcritic (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the opinion that I could or should or would " rule on your request".

I will however restate my single comment from that village pump discussion [3] that improper, indiscriminate and unceasing promotion of FRINGE topics and fringe sources falls under the Arb Com pseudoscience ruling which allows speedy application of Arbitration Enforcement to apply sanctions to minimize disruption in and about those topic areas. If you dont reform your approach to editing, it is likely that some type of those Arbitration Enforcement sanctions will be headed your way shortly. see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and WP:AE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I intend to make a formal request for such arbitration. See comments at the village pump. Ps regarding your opinion that my contributions are "improper, indiscriminate and unceasing promotion of FRINGE topics and fringe sources," there is a large and growing community of relativity critics (of length contraction, specifically) which can not be censored out and excluded from (mainstream based) "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" forever. I hope to get a fair hearing from "arbitration/pseudoscience" as to whether all criticism of relativity is legitimately called "pseudoscience." Pps; regarding "I am not sure where you got the opinion that I could or should or would " rule on your request." It had to do with the obvious claim to power (over my contributions in this case) as expressed in your user name. I clearly took it too literally.LCcritic (talk) 18:10, 23 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)

Yes that seems a good approach. One good reliable source is worth far more than a whole pageful of arguments. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The quotes I have repeatedly cited from Einstein himself, denying realism, constitute a "good reliable source" for the undeniable fact that relativity is not based on realism. (See common definitions of realism, also often cited.) All the sources cited in my "Published criticisms..." section above criticize relativity on the grounds of its denial of 'a real world' independent of observation. Whatever policies or consensus (among defenders of mainstream relativity) which forbid such criticism do not serve fair coverage of criticisms of relativity in Wikipedia. I have been told that a reliable secondary source is required to confirm that Einstein was not a realist, so that realists (like those I cited) then have a legitimate argument against relativity (specifically length contraction.) This simply denies that he meant what he said. "I concede that the natural sciences concern the 'real,' but I am still not a realist." Then there is the policy against "synthesis," (and editors' opinions) yet the editor of the lead "Criticisms..." article states as a fact that no criticism of relativity is "acceptable to the scientific community." This is clearly a "synthesis" of all criticisms and a judgmental opinion that they are all "unacceptable." Of course, "Fringe" is always the cited exclusion policy in defense of the "mainstream." This contradicts Wikipedia policy as follows: "Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.” As to my alleged incompetence, your (VQuakr's) previously expressed belief that I am a liar is only your own misinformed opinion. I am an expert* (according to the university where I taught) in philosophy of science including epistemology, ontology, logic and the difference between realism and idealism... and relativity's re-definiton of realism as observer-dependent... as relevant to the foundations of relativity. *Not so much an expert on which contradictory policies and guidelines (as above, "neutral point of view") apply in each situation... or navigating the labyrinth to find "the appropriate place" (if any) for legitimate criticism of length contraction, for instance.LCcritic (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have been more efficient for you to simply reply, "No, I will not provide a single reliable source." My offer stands if you change your mind. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And this was already debunked before in Talk:Criticism of the theory of relativity#Einstein's denial of a "real world" as the basis for SR. - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 24 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)

Right. Per my offer to review your (unfortunately selected) single best source: yes, Einstein verifiably wrote the paragraph you quote at the top of this section. It meets our requirements outlined at WP:V and WP:RS. Of course, since that quote does not mention relativity, it is not going to be included in an article on criticisms of relativity. The rest of your rant above has already been addressed. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "Nice tag team stonewall maneuver by two hard core defenders of mainstream orthodoxy. Perfect dodge of quoted policy": you might have a look at wp:AGF, wp:CIVIL, specially wp:NPA sometime. - DVdm (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You really need to cut down on your own synthesis and concentrating on getting a source that says what you are trying to say. Long reams of your own text trying to connect bits in fact dilute any point rather then improving it as they are near worthless as arguments on Wikipedia whereas reliable sources are the pearls. For instance we can generate particles with a short lifetime, going at near the speed of light they take longer to decay and go further than one might expect given their lifetime, have we a reliable source criticizing how special relativity deals with that? Or have you any other specific problem that a reliable source deals with? Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 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)

@LCcritic: can you cite (and date) one specific instance of a "personally abusive attack" made by me against you? - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you just produce a single source saying what you want to say please. Not two sources that you stick together and prove to you something else that you want to stick in. Dmcq (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (part of WP:RS, which I repeat my request for you to read): "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." So yes, your quote of Einstein that does not mention relativity does not appear to be useful as a source for new material in criticism of the theory of relativity. As has already been explained to you, the "accepted by the scientific community" sentence is directly supported by two reliable sources. So, not a synthesis. Correct, the points in your rant above were also already addressed. Which ones did you need explained to you again? VQuakr (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the "Reality of Length Contraction"

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)

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. No, they have been excluded because they are your examples. I also refuse to continue the argument from realism on the terms or in the "playing field" dictated by the above gang. Then you should start a website or something where you will control the content. User space on Wikipedia is for supporting improvements to articles. It does not belong to you - it belongs to the community you call a "gang". It is not a blog space for you to air your personal grievances with science or to voice your own interpretations of Einstein. VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I started this section to discuss the present Wikipedia subsection on "The Reality of length contraction," as the title indicates, as focused on Einstein's reply to Varicak. I invite comment on the content of my opening post. All others, especially those with an axe to grind (see last reply) are asked to comply with that intent and refrain from further personal harassment.LCcritic (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what reliable source are you citing that describes relative motion of two objects as a "tricky shuffle?" VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with VQuakr. What you need to produce is a reliable source saying what you're saying. Your own explanations cannot be used in Wikipedia and you cannot argue from two or more sources to give what you are saying. WP:OR explains all this. Dmcq (talk) 08:17, 28 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)

Stop using your talk page as a forum

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)

I too am here to help build an encyclopedia. My interest and focus here, as you point out, has a been primarily to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the historic and ongoing debate as to whether "length contraction" is a physically "real" shortening of objects' lengths or only an artifact of measurement from different (moving) frames of reference. My username obviously refers to that focus. (You treat it as a deception... then pull out a "Gotcha!") The "reality of length contraction" subsection, by title, proposes to address that issue, yet it only documents Einstein's self contradiction, as his comments clearly show it to be observer dependent. I have argued against the consensus editorial opinion here, (as stated in the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity lead) that no criticisms of relativity are "accepted by the scientific community," clearly an extreme prejudice against all criticism, such as from realism. You cite (and interpret) policies and guidelines which perpetuate this prejudice. If the "single purpose account" policy forbids such a focus by an editor, it is wrong and should be changed. See my comments on the "Ignore All Rules" guideline above, which allows such attempts to change policies, guidelines, and extremely prejudiced consensus against such criticism as long as it is a "good faith" (another guideline) attempt to "improve Wikipedia," which is my 'good faith' intention and purpose. Regarding the "NOTFORUM" policy, discussion is ubiquitous, both on user talk pages and on article talk pages, which is debate among editors about what each article should include. That is what editors here do. So calling such debate a "forum" (ergo not allowed) is just another misuse of ambiguous policy by those who don't approve of the content of a specific debate over appropriate article content. Ps, I could "diversify (my) editing" by bringing the realism vs idealism debate (quoting sources, of course) to the "philosophical criticisms" subsection of the main 'Criticisms..." article, or by including ontological criticisms of general relativity's reification of "spacetime" as a malleable entity. I have already tried to introduce Kelly Ross's paper on the ontology of the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidian geometry as the basis for relativity, but that was not allowed, because Ross is a critic of relativity. ("Catch 22.") So I am already on record as a "diversified" critic of both SR and GR. I am not interested in "non-relativity related topics" as an editor here. Maybe an edit of a basket-weaving article (or writing one) could legitimize my contributions as a diversified editor. (Or not.) Enough. My focus is now on the above section, and I invite comments on changing or expanding that section, to include the criticism that LC is not physically "real" as per section title.LCcritic (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That brings us back again to my very first reply to your very first legitimate talk page edit, in October 2013, and to its repetition here on this talk page in March 2014:

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

It explains how the world nowadays looks at and defines "physical reality". Unqualified "length" is a coordinate dependent property. "Proper length", as measured in the rest frame of an object, is absolute. Your criticism is—de facto—moot, and your pushing it should have stopped there—and here— and then, twice already now. And of course it should also stop here and now. - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet the debate about relativity, especially the physical vs measurement-artifact nature of length contraction still goes on (whether in dozens or hundreds or thousands of places) and Varicak's challenge goes unanswered in Wiki. Einstein's 'answer' was (paraphrasing) that 'yes it is real to one observer, but no it's not real to another observer.' Is it "real, physical" observer-independent contraction or just apparent, observer-dependent differences in measurement? The question goes unanswered. With all of your parroting of the mainstream party line, you have never addressed that issue. You just want to put a cork in it and keep all criticism... that it is not real physical contraction... out of the encyclopedia. I think your insistence that the debate is over should stop. It isn't. The section in question shows Einstein blatantly contradicting himself, yet it remains the encyclopedia's definitive statement on the "reality of length contraction." It "really" degrades Wikipedia's credibility for anyone looking for an answer to the question, "Is length contraction physical or not?" LCcritic (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not to be addressed in Wikipedia. It is to addressed here. - DVdm (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue of "The reality of length contraction" already has a subsection in Wikipedia. Yet it has not been addressed, other than to show Einstein affirming that it depends on the observer while denying that it is only an "apparent or subjective" effect, as Varicak challenged. Btw, you must be running out of demeaning examples with which to compare me. You already showed Hitler on his soapbox preaching Nazi doctrine... like I must be doing here, one would suppose. Ps... Oopse! I was not going to defend myself against further personal harassment... but it still begs to be pointed out to all readers that this violates civility protocol.LCcritic (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The other picture that I showed you, was this one as another example of Speakers Corner when I pointed out that you had indeed misunderstood the Wikipedia guidelines. See archived discussion. By the way, that guy doesn't look like Hitler to me. - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 2 May 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)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see it's deleted/hidden again, still labeled as WP:NOR... not as WP:NOTSOAPBOX; so which is it? Then the question remains, if an editor sees an obvious blatant contradiction in quoted text, doesn't the "Ignore All Rules" for the sake of improving the encyclopedia apply. I don't see how recognizing Einstein's self contradiction and pointing it out for clarification of "the reality of length contraction" qualifies as using Wikipedia as a "soapbox." Btw, DVdm, was that the same "soapbox" picture you originally linked or was it changed? (If I could find the original I would.) Finally, I'm still not clear on what right an editor has to delete material on another's talk page, depending perhaps, as above, on a biased interpretation of a guideline violation. Seems like an invitation to editing wars. LCcritic (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it was the original "soapbox" picture that I originally linked. Do you think I would lie to you? Have you ever clicked and followed a link? Hint: the following are the links that I used in my message:

• this one,
• pointed out,
• indeed misunderstood the Wikipedia guidelines,
• archived discussion.

Now, take your mouse and click. Then look—carefully—and tell me how it could possibly have been changed. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: see WP:UPNOT. Among the list of things not to be included is Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.) You do not "own" this user talk page, and there is broad consensus that you may not use it to host your original research. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 3 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)

A reader sincerely interested in finding an answer to that question in Wikipedia, should go to the wp:reference desk/science and ask. You should know that, because you already tried that three times. Here's some more links:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 26#'Real world' length contraction

with replies from users Dbfirs, Dauto, Sebastiangarth, SteveBaker, Modocc, Nimur

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 31#'Real world length contraction' moved to archives. Why?

with replies from users Ssscienccce, Trovatore, SteveBaker, Modocc.

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 31#Contracted Earth diameter and atmosphere depth

with replies from users SteveBaker, Tevildo, DHeyward, , BenRG, Trovatore, Modocc, Medeis, Someguy1221, Wnt, Count Iblis, DHeyward

Unfortunately you seem to have failed to accept the answers from the editors here. Perhaps you should accept that we just cannot help you with this. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: this is already covered in the length contraction article. For example: The range of action of muons at high velocities is much higher than that of slower ones. The atmosphere has its proper length in the Earth frame, while the increased muon range is explained by their longer lifetimes due to time dilation (see Time dilation of moving particles). However, in the muon frame their lifetime is unchanged, but the atmosphere is contracted so that even their small range is sufficient to reach the surface of earth. How does that not answer our hypothetical reader's question about whether length contraction is "physical"? VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, but I already answered it in the 'time dilation/length contraction' section above. Here it is again: Muons traveling through our atmosphere have higher velocities than lab-accelerated muons, so they decay more slowly ("live longer") and therefore travel further than lab muons, so they can reach Earth's surface. SR claims that the depth/thickness of the atmosphere contracts "for those muons." But the atmosphere remains about 1000 km all around Earth at all times, not contracted by what incoming muons would "observe." Different observations can not change physical objects or distances. SR claims that it does... LCcritic (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: correct, the proper length (what you refer to as a "physical distance") of the atmosphere is not changed by the atmosphere being observed from another frame. This is not in contradiction with SR. Stepping back a bit, can you cite a reliable source that makes the argument you are making above? VQuakr (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, You just affirmed my ongoing argument (not just 'mine' but from philosophical realism) that the physical world of objects and distances between objects does not change when observed from all manner of different moving frames which might make things appear to shrink. Yet mainstream SR refuses to allow this distinction (apparent vs physical contraction) in clarification of length contraction in Wikipedia. I can't seem to find a "reliable source" for my argument above, so I will retract it for now. (i would put a line through the text if i knew how.) My original source was Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla; Debunking Relativity: "Apparently muon’s life span and speed were calculated using low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. But why do we think that the same must hold true for the high energy muons produced as cosmic radiation collides with the earth’s atmosphere?" However, he is over the edge as a "relativity debunker," lacking credibility even with this critic of length contraction. Yet the point remains that "for a muon" does not change the depth of the atmosphere, homogeneous at 1000 km. Likewise, "for a fast spaceship" would not change the distance between stars, even though the travelers would age more slowly, just as the ship's clock would tick more slowly. LCcritic (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic: If you would like to learn how physicists look at what happens with the high energy muons produced as cosmic radiation collides with the earth’s atmosphere, and how exactly they go about at really measuring the effect of time dilation, then you certainly should watch this film. If you sit through the entire film, you will also notice something that pertains to length contraction, the subject of your criticism. See also the transcript here. Warmly recommended. - DVdm (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My present old computer is incapable of video, but I got the gist of the transcript. I have no problem with internal systems (clocks ticking, muons decaying, organisms aging) slowing down the faster they travel. ("Time dilation" is a misnomer which speaks of time as an entity which expands.) The problem is that the math which insists that length contraction is the reciprocal of time dilation ignores the "real physical world" which noes not in fact change in dimensions as "observed" by various fast frames. It is not true that the faster a frame travels the shorter the distance traveled. The distances between stars will remain unaffected by any future high speed travel between them. See my opening statement in the above section, "Length contraction as the reciprocal of time dilation."LCcritic (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is indeed true (read: accepted) that the faster a frame travels, the shorter the distance traveled, as measured in that frame. It's the only way that time dilation can work, as the authors briefly explain. Accepting time dilation as a fact but rejecting length contraction is exactly like accepting the existence of Santa Claus but rejecting the Easter Bunny. Or like failing to understand both, which is of course understandable—and actually to be expected—from the point of view of the layman. - DVdm (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The physicists in the video are simply applying the relativistic paradigm (light speed invariance and the equivalence of reference frames) to conclude that length contraction is being measured. So lets ignore the relativistic invariant light speed (since I've been working diligently on an alternative Galilean theory for which light speed is not actually invariant although it appears to be if the underlying fundamental physics is misinterpreted and not understood), because with Galilean relativity distances are definitely absolute, therefore length_earthframe = length_muonframe = ct_earthframe = ct_muonframe and c'/c = t/t' = 9. Light then simply travels throughout the universe nine times quicker according to the muon frame's slow clocks than according to ours. Thus, no length contraction is deduced when the classical paradigm is applied. Of course, there happens to be lots of material objects, such as particles, ships, planets, etc with different velocities and clock rates, and yet given absolute distances, and the Galilean paradigm, it is those observers in the universe that happen to be at rest with its absolute rest state that should have the fastest clock rates relative to the others. As an example of what I mean, from the Harry Potter series imagine that you suddenly find yourself in the room of a huge cloud of flying door keys, but there is no inertial frame of reference (no actual walls, doors or anything such thing to consider), and even though your appearance in the cloud is arbitrary, with an arbitrary velocity, your objective is to find which lot of keys happens to have the fastest tickers and age the fastest. Once you have convinced yourself that this quest is not futile, it's a matter of understanding how the classical paradigm is applicable and showing why the speed of photons only happens to appear invariant with an elegant, sound and verifiable model. -Modocc (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

To DVdm... Thanks for the links to that review of "answers" from the reference desk.(Your condescending remarks above were inappropriate, btw, but I am used to that. I remember an image of Hitler, in your first 'soapbox' link, but I could be wrong; and yes, I am quite skeptical of your claim to honesty.) Some reference desk editors insisted that the length of Earth's diameter actually does change as measurements of it change (believe it or not!) just like the length of rods and poles actually physically shrink to, say, half their proper length as so measured from a frame traveling at 86% of lightspeed. Others recognize that apparent length contraction is an artifact of measurement, but for some reason SR advocates will not allow the use of the word "apparent" as applied to contraction as clarification (with some exceptions *), so the contradiction/ambiguity was not resolved by the reference desk. The question I posed above remains unanswered for a reader of "The Reality of length contraction" section. It certainly needs clarification, as provided by those who recognize the difference between "appearences" (artifacts of measurement) and physical changes in objects themselves... not to mention the distances between stars. Oh, I did mention it! *Btw, thanks to Medius for the comment, "Things are real and appearances are appearances." The obvious implication is that appearances can change while objects/things do not change. (My essential point.) Of course the physics of shrinking physical objects is ignored by those who claim that it happens. Must be a metaphysical shrinkage. SR is not concerned with accurate description the physical world... if there is one!LCcritic (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You are flatly wrong, yes. I am not an idiot, and I would never point you to an image of Hitler. But I do note that you are quite skeptical of my claim to honesty. - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• If I might offer a comment, since I have been summoned here from the nether region. Consider a pole stuck in a swimming pool. To th e observer it will appear bent, even discontinuous if looked at from the side. Is this "real"? The question is meaningless (a category mistake). Things are real and appearances are appearances. Bent or discontinuous is simply the way a pole appears to us in this context. A different context applies if we describe how it appears to us if moving at the speed of light relative to us. I will be unwatching this page, please don't contact me regarding the above comments, but do read David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses if you want a fuller description. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Note - aaah.... sorry for that summoning, that was not intended. I hadn't realised that this {{u}} template would fire a notification at all you here. I thought that this only happened with the {{ping}} and {{reply}} templates. My apologies. - DVdm (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think LCcritic should be welcome to legitimately discuss anything on his talk page that he could discuss on RD/S. It's an interesting question worth thinking about to have a clearer article. The best way that I can see to address the "reality" of length contraction is to picture the following situation:

• A Flatland bus 25' long and 5' wide speeds down the road until its contraction is 5:1, i.e. it is 5 x 5.
• You drop a 5.1x5.1 square windowframe from above so that it meets the road at the same time the bus arrives, then falls through precisely constructed gaps in the pavement.
• So far as I know, for a moment, in the frame of the road, the bus should be entirely contained, front to back, inside the windowframe. Right?
• Strange thing is, from the bus point of view it is a 25-foot bus passing through a 1-foot foreshortened windowframe. But the front of the windowframe meeting the road and the back of the windowframe meeting it are two different events, and since they're simultaneous in the road's frame, they're not simultaneous in the bus's frame. Whether that means the frame seems twisted... that I dunno.

Anyway, I don't think it's unproductive to hash over this stuff, and those desperately interested in destroying "forums" (by creating huge amounts of extra, unpleasant discussions) should take solace that a really interesting diagram might eventually be unearthed by this means. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your thought experiment is the subject of an article that I've pointed out to you on at least a couple of occasions. This phenomenon is called "The Ladder paradox" - and the solution to it has been known and understood for at least 50 years. Replace the ladder with a bus and the barn with your window frame - and you have the exact same set of conditions, and the exact same result. This so-called paradox is fully understood and is completely explained in our article. I pointed this article out to you at least once in our previous encounters - and you clearly either didn't read it - or didn't understand it. Either way, we're telling you in words of one syllable that you are very clearly 100% utterly wrong. The reason that you're wrong is that you're ignoring the fact that time dilation applies here - and the concept of simultaneity (upon which your reasoning rests) simply doesn't apply in the real world. So it's time to give it up. If (as it appears), this is your only purpose to be here on Wikipedia then you can retire your account right now. If you think you can contribute usefully to other articles, WITHOUT dragging your horrible misunderstandings of how relativity works into other article discussions - then please feel free to do so.

The problem here is that you're so fixated in getting your point across, you're completely missing the fact that your point is invalid - and has been known to be invalid for 50 years! Nobody else wants to discuss this with you because it's VERY obvious that you're wrong - and further efforts to pursuade you of how wrong you are is simply resulting in you forum shopping to find other people to talk to about it.

I know you THINK you've found a very clever argument that invalidates all of relativity theory - but that's utterly not the case. You've made a mistake and you're refusing to admit it. Unsurprisingly, we're not really interested in fighting with you anymore.

At some point, your continued insistence on beating this dead horse wanders into the realms of disruptive editing - which can get you kicked off of the site.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoah @SteveBaker:, did you mix me up with LCcritic? Don't hold this one against him! I just got pinged (apparently inadvertently) and had to go off on my own little tangent, wasn't even saying for sure that's what happens but I think so. You're right that this is very close to the ladder paradox - to put it in those terms, suppose you shut and lock the front and back doors of the garage right when the ladder is inside. Yet in the ladder's frame of reference... well, I think I still get confused. :) I know I'm not trying to prove some new law of physics here, and I wouldn't assume the OP is either, but I think it's useful to keep shuffling and trying out a range of thought experiments in the hope of coming up with a more intuitive way to explain this concept to ourselves and others. Wnt (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearing up the confusion I sowed below: The w:ladder paradox can be confusing, because events at different places are not simultaneous in both frames. At top, in the barn's frame, a foreshortened ladder enters a barn, leaving time for the door to close before an explosion from the impact site at the rear fills the barn. At bottom, the explosion in the ladder's frame begins long before the rear end of the ladder enters the barn, long before the door has closed behind the rear end of the ladder. However, as the barn is (and must be) moving at nearly the speed of light for it to be this foreshortened, the explosion, even moving at the speed of light, cannot escape the barn door before it closes. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My profound apologies @Wnt:...yes, I did get you mixed up with @LCcritic:! But the solution to the ladder paradox is indeed the exact same solution as to your school bus thought experiment. The "locking the doors" thing is also explained in the Ladder paradox article - but it's even harder to understand. However, it's still been well-understood ever since the solution was found in 1961. Basically, the idea that both doors are "simultaneously" closed makes a statement about simultaneity - and in special relativity, simultaneity isn't guaranteed to be the same for both observers...because of the finite speed of light and due to time dilation...so from the perspective of the ladder, the doors were closed at different points in time - so it never was constrained by both sets of doors at once - and from the ladder's perspective, it never had to fit inside the barn at all. From the perspective of the outside observer, the doors were closed at the exact same time - and the ladder was short enough to fit inside. So again, it's all incredibly weird and interesting - but there is no paradox and special relativity works "as advertised". I agree that it's tough to get to an intuitive answer - but (I forget who said this) it's not nature's responsibility to be comprehensible to the human mind. Just because we find it hard to comprehend, doesn't make it untrue. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The article touches on that, sure.... but there's a huge hole in my understanding, which they sidestep by assuming the doors open again. Namely, in the barn's frame, you can lock both doors at the same time and the ladder will be entirely contained within a sufficiently sturdy barn when the inevitable explosion occurs. But in the ladder's frame, the front of the ladder hits the far wall long before the rear end is inside. If the ladder/barn is foreshortened enough, there ought even be time for shrapnel generated at the locked rear door to blow out the open entry door to the barn before the rear end of the ladder is inside it. Until I understand that I'm not resting easy here. Wnt (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That one is easy: Ask yourself how fast the shrapnel would have to travel in order to reach the back door before it closes. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I got this one myself while trying to make a graphic of the "paradox". But here it is for what it's worth. I'm not sure if it's too dumb to put in the article. :) Wnt (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that feeling. It's not dumb, but it would fail WP:NOR, and the two views do not tell the same story, if you look at it. I think an animation of this would be a valuable addition to Commons, though. Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really that good an artist. It would be nice to see. And yes, there could be some inaccuracy the way I've drawn it. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As another unexpecting participant, I merely point out that Medies is the editor whose views are acceptable to LCCritic. No further comment seems necessary. Tevildo (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that Medius' comment is acceptable: "Things are real and appearances are appearances?" Then my reply and "my essential point" must also be acceptable, "...that appearances can change while objects/things do not change." If so this essential disambiguation must be allowed (properly sourced, of course) in the Wiki's "Reality of length contraction" section. Agreed? Ps; I restored my section above, "Back to the reality of length contraction." It contains the Wiki text discussing said "reality" and discusses the "apparent vs physical" issue for the purpose of clarification of that section in the encyclopedia... yet to be composed with proper references. Help with that would be appreciated.LCcritic (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Medeis's one comment more than I agree with anything else I've read in this thread (though I've only skimmed it). I'll attach my Ref Desk reputation to it if that helps. -- BenRG (talk) 18:49, 5 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)

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. Word choice is important in pedagogy and it can be worth arguing about what words to use in Wikipedia articles. In this case, though, I feel that anyone who wants to know whether length contraction is real has not understood it. We should teach it well enough that people can work out the answer themselves (the answer being "it's a silly question").

A couple of years ago I made File:Euclidean analogue of length contraction.svg, File:Euclidean analogue of velocity addition.svg and File:Euclidean barn-pole paradox.svg. The first one is the most relevant here. If you've got a strip of width 1 that's vertical, its width, measured along a horizontal axis, is 1. If you rotate the strip or the measurement axis by a slope of ½, the width becomes ${\sqrt {1+({\tfrac {1}{2}})^{2}}}$ = √5/2. Does the strip's width depend on the "observer"? Sure, if by "observer" you mean "direction of the line along which you measure the width". Does the "observer"-dependent widening of the line have physical consequences? Sure, if you cover a cylindrical pole with strips at a slope of ½ to the vertical there will be √5/2 times fewer of them around the pole than if the strips were vertical. So is the widening real? Yes in a way, no in a way, but more importantly who cares? It's obvious what's going on and it's not exactly deep in philosophical implications. -- BenRG (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, LCcritic and others' argument incorrectly attacks length contraction and relativity, by presuming the existence and absoluteness of Galilean relativity. Yet, "Is length contraction real?" isn't a silly or meaningless question at all because whether or not something is real is, by definition, an empirical question. We have measured local contractions, but we have not measured, directly, frame-dependent contractions and relativity of simultaneity. So why would physicists be blind and get this wrong and fall into the same pit? In part, because of such red-herring arguments. Four-dimensionalism per the Rietdijk–Putnam argument is more inexplicable than even swallowing a shrunken Earth. So from a skeptic's perspective, garbage in will be seen to beget garbage. -Modocc (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, out of all this I think the image that will stick with me is what happens if you lob a hand grenade at nearly the speed of light. The grenade tumbles freely through space and explodes... and the explosion will be foreshortened, not a round ball of expanding gas and shrapnel, because that's how velocity adds up in the observer's frame. And of course even before the explosion the grenade was tumbling end over end at a constant rate, yet from the observer's frame, the top and bottom edges are points where it moves very slowly (beyond its base relativistic velocity, of course), while it rotates at the normal rate along the front and back edges. So all things considered, yeah, perhaps the projection in the other frame seems "fictitious" in the same sense that, say, centrifugal force is fictitious. But it's still the way to do the calculation, so what does it matter? Wnt (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The predicted projections if measured would not be fictitious, but these would be a result of spacetime rotation within a pseudoEuclidean geometry. --Modocc (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, the explosion would not be foreshortened, but distorted in a more complicated way. It is cone-shaped in spacetime and the length contraction formula applies to objects that are, for lack of a better word, tube-shaped in spacetime. Modocc, you replied to my post but I don't think you understand what I or Medeis said about the word "real". I can't even see any evidence that you read it. -- BenRG (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point! Because the shape of the explosion is also affected because the observer looks at a "younger" explosion at the head end and an "older" explosion at the tail end.

I suppose all of this ties in also to the Ehrenfest paradox. When we're looking at a moving "rigid" body, we're looking at slices from different times, so even if the object is truly rigid at rest, it's not literally connected to itself in any other frame except by history... so to speak. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

About the question, you said "...it's about the definition of the word "real"..", which is fine if one is debating the meaning of real, which is generally not the case within the context of the sciences, real being simply those properties which are empirically validated. So the question has meaning and is relevant and should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Moreover, with physics, the term "apparent" does mean not real, for it applies to the apparent motion of the stars as well as the seemingly "bent" poles(in the water), but such meaning of "apparent" does not apply to the predicted length contractions. --Modocc (talk) 23:51, 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)

Source? VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit conflict page has two edit boxes, and the one on the bottom contains your text, which you can copy and paste into a new edit window to avoid losing it. If that doesn't work, pressing the back button should take you back to the edit page with your text still there. Spacetime is the world of special relativity, and it isn't much different philosophically from the world of Newtonian physics. A total ordering of Wikipedia edits is not impossible in a special relativistic universe. I do think that understanding special relativity is a prerequisite to proposing changes to introductory articles on the subject, and I'm not sure you're quite there yet. I have similar doubts about most of the other people posting in this thread. -- BenRG (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if it isn't clear, I basically agree with your feelings about special relativity and "reality". I think the standard approach to teaching it is badly broken in part because it doesn't make it clear that there's just one spacetime and not a bunch of incompatible worlds for each "observer". I tend to think that people who defend the standard approach are people who don't know any other way of thinking about special relativity. -- BenRG (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I do not navigate this place well. "I do think that understanding special relativity is a prerequisite to proposing changes to introductory articles on the subject, and I'm not sure you're quite there yet." How condescending! I'll be 69 in June, and I was teaching philosophy of science when I was 22 and 23 yrs old. The philosophical basis of both special and general relativity were included in that curriculum. I have kept up on developments since then. Please do not continue to condescend as if relativity's physics dictates the true understanding of 'the world' and as if the philosophical foundation of SR is just irrelevant "armchair philosophy," as the consensus here among the mainstream relativity defenders insists... and enforces as guidelines/policy.LCcritic (talk) 04:12, 6 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)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 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)

As I have mentioned before, no guideline or policy that I am aware of explicitly precludes coverage of criticism of length contraction. For example, WP:RS does not mention relativity at all. If you believe you have found a reliable source that covers this topic, by all means please present it. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Last statement in lead of "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article: "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community." Is this just the opinion of one editor or does it reflect a consensus of editors? If so, does such a consensus function as a guideline or policy (to exclude such viewpoints) without officially being one, or is it just a consensus of mainstream advocates of relativity insisting that it is beyond criticism? I posted a short list of critical references (see section above on "Published criticisms..."), none of which are "allowed" because no critic is "mainstream" enough for inclusion. ("Catch 22.") Suggestions?LCcritic (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the content of the article does not function as policy but should instead reflect it. As I have mentioned before, none of the references on your list were reliable. They are not disallowed because no critic is "mainstream" enough for inclusion, but because the sources themselves to not meet the requirements of WP:RS. You are claiming a circularity in our policy when there is none. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"...but should instead reflect it." Does it reflect policy or is it just one editor's opinion? It does set precedent excluding criticism. Btw, I have replied to your inquiry about muons and length contraction above. LCcritic (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It reflects the content of the reliable sources cited immediately following the statement, in compliance with WP:V and WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Physicists today don't seem to mind seeking alternatives to GR (even though Einstein deduced GR from SR, thus SR should be suspect), but relativity is deeply entrenched even though it may not have been quite as accepted when you were younger (I'm 53 going on 54 myself). BenRG's two-dimensional example of length measurement is spot-on, because similar rotations for which lengths differ can be made with much more abstract spaces (which requires linear algebra to understand which I studied at North Carolina State University and did quite well with my coursework there). Thus, the notion that reality can reflect such a nonEuclidean model is justified insofar as its proponents can make it work and why length contraction measurement is predicted, thus the theory and its contractions are considered real, and not apparent. 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 do have my own work cut out for me and I will be more than up to the task later this year since I'm making significant progress on several significant projects that I'm working on. In any case, because of the complexity of the underlying physics and the rather poor math skills of most skeptics, the mainstream journals do not even dare acknowledge skepticism (I've read more or along the lines of disillusionment with GR, especially during the late-seventies when string theories were being invented, than any critical skepticism of relativity), and this will not change until a plausible alternative is shown to exist. Just a thought, but I suggest that you check with Britannica and other mainstream encyclopedias (these can be cited) for criticisms of relativity to see how we compare. -Modocc (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Other mainstream encyclopedias are wp:tertiary sources and should be avoided when good wp:secondary sources are abundantly available, per

"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."

DVdm (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure tertiary sources should be avoided for specific content if there is alternative sourcing available, but not to their exclusion:

"Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others.

Besides if there is any relevant content in the Britannica I'd like to consider it (its not uncommon for us to do so) or similar material from secondary sources. One could argue that the Britannica is not peer-reviewed, but it's not often that its unreliable... I've certainly seen plenty of garbage in encyclopedias, but these are still valuable resources to draw from. --Modocc (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If there's a consensus to use some tertiary source, then no problem. As you know, with consensus, almost anything goes. - DVdm (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Back again to the "reality of length contraction"

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)

Kelley Ross was already dismissed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Criticism of relativity not allowed. See wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

a)Einstein's postulated light speed invariance entails b)frame-dependent length contraction. That is an undisputed fact that anyone familiar enough with how to do the math of its physics should/would know (its not all that hard). Not b implies not a. Your beef is, whether you are aware of it or not, is therefore also with light speed invariance which requires photons to be immune to frame-dependent velocity addition. Modocc (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And so, his beef is with the entire body of modern physics. See wp:FRINGE. - DVdm (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe yes, entire body of modern physics, not entirely, he seems to be only concerned with the parts that actually contradict Galilean relativity. Modocc (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

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)

Warning

Please carefully read this information:

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)

Another warning

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)

I simply forgot to log in when accepting your invitation to address the situation on your talk page... which you immediately deleted without addressing the issue at all. ("Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.") Here it is for the general reader. Given your absolute intolerance for criticism, this will probably be my last entry before I am blocked: The “Criticisms of the theory of relativity" lead ends with the editorial opinion: “Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community.” This sets the precedent against inclusion of any and all criticism of relativity. Yet there are hundreds of such criticfisms in the literature on relativity. Is Wikipedia policy that all of them are “fringe/pseudoscience? For instance, regarding length contraction, as I said in my last talk page entry, “... 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 that stars would become physically closer to each other when a future high speed ship travels between them.” Yet that is the “mainstream” position on length contraction. If a reader is looking for an answer in Wikipedia’s subsection, “The reality of length contraction” to the question, “Is length contraction a real, physical shortening of objects and distances between them or not?,” he will not find the answer. Instead he will find Einstein denying Varicak’s claim that length contraction is “apparent,subjective” (for Einstein) and then a clear example by Einstein of the observer dependence of length contraction. At the very least this contradiction should be addressed and a clear answer provided for such a reader. Thanks for considering (ed: He didn't) this perspective from philosophical realism, as well published in critical literature, not allowed in Wiki. (forgot signature.)LCcritic (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I made no such invitation. And do not mistake a rhetorical question for a question you'd be welcome to ask - your statement on my talk page was simple grandstanding.

There are only so many ways of saying this: there is no point whatsoever writing your stock defence of your position because the few people that can be bothered to read it, don't care. You are an obsessive single purpose account. Find another interest on Wikipedia, or simply leave, the choice is yours. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The "single purpose account page" states: " If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored causes, which is not allowed." I do not understand why my intentions are not judged to be "in good faith" as bolded above or how the whole community of length-contraction-critical realists, (myself included) are judged to be "showcasing their favorite causes." There are many who agree that length contraction is not physical but rather an apparent artifact of measurement. The encyclopedia, however, will not include this ubiquitous point of view. I hope there are other administrators here who will consider the above and allow that point of view (properly documented of course) rather than just excluding all such criticism as "not accepted by the scientific community." If not, the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article should simply read, "There are no legitimate criticisms of the theory of relativity. Period." Ps: My contributions have also addressed the ontology of "spacetime" as per general relativity and joined in the "Relativity of Simultaneity talk page discussion with an example of two events which undeniably happen at the same time. Yes, my interest here is in improving Wikipedia's coverage of criticisms of relativity. I do not understand why contributions to only one area of science are forbidden here (called "obsessive") or why exceptions are allowed for relativity mainstream defenders as long as they are not critical of relativity. LCcritic (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, WP:TLDR, WP:IDHT. Your choice. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"I do not understand why my intentions are not judged to be "in good faith"" You do not play by the rules after you have been informed about them many times over. If you do not understand this, that is your problem. Paradoctor (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• LCcritic, I'm one of the few asking for a little extra patience at ANI, but my patience isn't unlimited. Being an SPA by itself isn't against policy, but it is usually considered to be a "red flag", as history has shown that SPAs often cause problems. Additionally, your single purpose is in the fringe science area, an area we have had so many previous problems that the Arbitration Committee has granted admin extraordinary power to deal with. You've been given the official warning, so you are literally one post away from an indef block. Any editor who chooses to focus on "unconventional" ideas in the fringe science area does so at their own peril, even more so if that is the only thing they edit, as it looks like they have no interest in actually building an encyclopedia, and instead are using Wikipedia to publish original theories or push a science/political agenda. That will (and should) get you indefinitely blocked. You are at a crossroads. If your only goal is to discredit relativity, you should probably do yourself a favor and just leave before you get blocked and banned. If you actually care about the encyclopedia, now would be a good time to show it. At this point, your faith is no longer the issue, it is your actions that matter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I do actually honestly care about bringing legitimate criticism of relativity to Wikipedia. The trouble is that all such criticism is considered (by consensus, apparently) illegitimate , as expressed in the quoted lead in the Criticism article. My career was in psychology, but I have had an abiding lifelong interest (as an adult) in the philosophical basis of relativity, as expressed by Einstein, whom I have often quoted. He did in fact deny realism as the basis for relativity's dependence on different observations from different frames as all equally valid, denying intrinsic dimensions of objects and distances (as per realism.) I had hoped that the "Reality of length contraction" subsection could include the argument from realism as published by many authors. I had also hoped that the "Philosophical criticisms" section of the "Criticisms..." article could include a reference to Kelley Ross's paper, "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry," but it was dismissed out of hand. His conclusion was as follows: "These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding." http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm I share Ross's philosophy and believe that it is an appropriate reference for the "Philosophical Criticisms" section. My efforts have clearly been fruitless as will be all other attempts by anyone else to include substantial criticism of relativity to Wikipedia as long as policy/guideline/consensus stands that none are "acceptable to the scientific community." I gave it my best effort in good faith and failed. Goodbye. LCcritic (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We would care about that, if there was any evidence that genuinely legitimate criticism existed. On the evidence you have presented so far, we can conclude that it does not. The criticism at present is limited tot hose who dislike the implications of relativity for some personal belief. That puts it into the same box as creation science and other agenda-driven bullshit. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• See, that is the problem. "I do actually honestly care about bringing legitimate criticism of relativity to Wikipedia". Your goal is only to bring criticism of relativity. When your only goal is to do something that is controversial, under discretionary sanctions, and is already a graveyard of banned and blocked users, you shouldn't be shocked if you join them. If your career was in psychology, maybe you would be better off trying some editing in that area and learn the ropes around here. There are some legitimate (as defined by sources) criticisms of relativity, we do have an article on it, after all. But it is a minefield, and if you were wise, you would first learn a map of the place by editing a few months in less controversial areas, then try to work with others in a collaborative fashion on relativity issues. No matter what, it is an area where any editor (you, me, anyone) should treat carefully as the threshold for getting blocked is extraordinarily low. The fact is, with only one goal, and coming on strong, you will get blocked. Period. It isn't about good faith, luck, fairness, etc. All that is meaningless. I'm just telling you what the outcome will be, whether you think it is fair or not, if you continue down the road you are travelling. If you continue anyway, please don't act shocked when you get indef blocked by any number of admin who are ready to right now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And not only should he first learn a map of the place. He should also first learn the first page of the subject he has chosen to edit. Here above he just wrote: "My contributions have also addressed the ontology of "spacetime" as per general relativity and joined in the "Relativity of Simultaneity talk page discussion with an example of two events which undeniably happen at the same time." Well, this happened here. Apart from it being off-topic on an article talk page, for which he got a third level warning a that time, his example is in direct contradiction with the entire article. Relativity of simultaneity is one of the first and most basic consequences of the invariance of the speed of light. The two events which, according to LCcritic, "undeniably happen at the same time", do, quite on the contrary, for some observers, undeniably fail to happen at the same time, as is explained in detail in the—properly sourced—article itself. His bringing up that particular example immediately demonstrates his—i.m.o. frankly spectacular—ignorance of the subject. And that is of course to be expected from someone with a mere background in psychology, in which curriculum physics has no place whatsoever, let alone advanced topics in physics. - DVdm (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DVdm (talk · contribs) - that's a classic example of how pro-fringers invariably fundamentally fail to understand the topic that they're obsessed with that leads to their WP:RGW behaviour. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be also pointed out that someone with a good general background in psychology really rather ought to be aware of various things including (1) the fallibility of the human mind (2) the fact that people believe often believe weird things (3) why people believe weird things and (4) his own limitations on being able to understand subjects he has no formal training in (and even if you had formal training, quantum physics can be very difficult). Unfortunately we have seen from the plethora of other banned users on WP:FRINGE topics that WP:IDHT is the basic standard response. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary 2

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)

"Things" are already as bad as it gets for any critic of relativity trying to make an editorial contribution here, even by citing credentialed sources if they are "mere philosophers" (like realists who disagree with Einstein's philosophy) or (god forbid,) physicists who disagree with the SR theory of contracting physical objects. "The world" exists independently of how it might be observed from various perspectives, however fast moving relative to the object or distance measured. So says realism, which Einstein denied and which is not allowed as criticism here. I presume this will be the last contribution I am allowed. So be it. Quantum physics, especially the evidence for the Higgs Field will soon debunk general relativity theory anyway, and special relativity's 'philosophy of shrinking objects' (due to observational differences... "length contraction") has been absolutely absurd ever since it was invented as a theoretical, observer-dependent model. Again, no need to bother to formally block me. The gag rule prevails against all serious criticism of relativity. It is no longer science anyway but a dogma which tolerates no criticism. I'm gone. LCcritic (talk) 00:18, 14 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)

Relativity topic ban

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

LCcritic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

75.170.5.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

71.34.249.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

71.215.180.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

63.155.163.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

63.155.141.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- DVdm (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bye

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)

That "the world" exists objectively, independent of how variously it might be observed is not, an, "-ahem- non standard interpretation of reality," Guy. Just in case I get the last word on my talk page... probably not as I am blocked.