Relativity controversy

Try this, Dale.

Suppose you buy a ticket and get on a train. It departs from the station at a pace so rapid that you are "pushed back" into your seat. Eventually, it levels off to a constant speed of 100 mph. With me so far?

You see trees, houses, stop signs, and anything else attached to the earth rushing past you. Would you, for even one second, conclude that you are motionless with respect to the earth's surface while IT moves past you?

Answer that, if you want, and I'll continue.

Sure Lay. I got on a train and it's goin' somewhere

Coursenot. However, is that what you hear Fres sayin'

Fresky hasn't said a damn thing that's relevant to the point I was making about SR. You said you didn't understand the point. I thought you were talking about that.

If you're asking about the significance of Fresky's posts, then I can't help you. I don't see any.

They are not about "relativity," so there's no real "relativity controversy" involved, as your thread title appears to assume.

I can tell you this much about Fresky: He's an utter subjectivist, i.e., solipsist. For him there is no "real world" out there. The only "reality" is in your mind. He's trying, quite unsuccessfully, if you ask me, to argue that his solipsism is somehow "correct."

At one point I said that SR was ultimately a product of solipsistic philosophy, not empirical science.

He's trying to argue a (lame-ass) philosophical point, which does not have anything to do with the theoretical propositions of SR, as such.

I don't know if you've looked back at the original thread, Dale, but I made a post there where a guy explains the philosophical positions that Fresky is trying to argue about;

https://able2know.org/topic/391613-5#post-6447317

As I said, he is trying to argue in favor of solipsistic philosophy. This has nothing to do with SR directly, but it certainly does indirectly. SR is a product of subjectivist philosophy.

The only way anybody can argue that SR is in any way consistent with "reality" is to assume that reality is strictly subjective, not objective.

Man, thank you for that link. My apolos inasmuch as the entire contro is apparently 'way beyond me

I don't think it is, Dale. Maybe this will help

The guy talks about:

If you believe that, then you might be inclined to also believe that SR reflects "reality." This is a solipsistic or subjectivst viewpoint.

He then says:

If you believe that, and consistently apply that belief, then you will reject SR as being consistent with "objective reality." This is the objective view, also known as "philosophical realism."

The objectivist says that when we perceive something there are two entitites involved: The observer (the "subject") and the thing being observed (the "object"). This is where the distinction between subject and object come into the terminology.

The solipsist says there is no "object," and that only the "subject" (the observer, i.e., the person) exists.

Lay thank you for that valiant attempt

Lay, what puzzles me is why all those changes to a solid object approaching a particular speed, c. My R&R explains 'em clearly

Well, that does seem mysterious. Why should objects change with temperature changes (as we know they do)? We have come up with generally accepted scientific explanations for this, but I don't think that's the case with relativistic distortions.

Starting with Lorentz back around 1900, there have been a number of theories attempting to explain how and why clocks slow down and lengths contract with speed. As far as I know, no given explanation has been generally accepted by the scientific community, but many seem to be "on the right path."

Einstein always felt that SR was an "inferior" theory because it was merely a "principle" theory as opposed to a "constructive" theory which gives a material explanation for it's claims. It didn't even "try" to be constructive.

Einstein said at the time that he didn't think the current state of knowledge about atomic and sub-atomic matters permitted such a theory.

Lay again thank you