): 
We differ on this. Scientific development is not made in grand sweeping away of the past. If we follow the historical developments in a thread of scientific inquiry, we see the golden thread of development. there are many deadends and backtracks in order to pursue the truth of the matter. I believe it is absolutely relevant. The Lorentz formulas were used to explain a null result, based on formulaic assumptions that the ether would be measured. The scientific inquiry of dilation and contraction is rooted in 'etherness'..the fact that Einstein was steeped in the etherness and rejected the ether and yet decided to use the formula is not coincidental.
The best indicator is a precise standard, taking into account actual physical properties. This is what I am driving at. The 'realness' of the apparent height of the distant person is translated into the standard measure, by trigonomety [for example] as you said. One of my favorite methods is the tree/tree shadow/self/self shadow measuring calculation. The claims of relativity's proper measurements in their own frame is known. I still contend that the observed dilation and shortening is of an order of distorted visual information. The quick panning camera photos are often used as an artistic rendering of the 'actual' distortion of an automobile. These sorts of claims violate the undersatnding of many branches of science. Material Scientists and Engineers know what stresses and strains and compressions certain materials can take.
Understood...I am referring to a movement which seeks to demolish all sigifiers, basically set afloat all historical links between ideas and their reference points. I do not believe all Relativists are Deconstructionists, but all Deconstructionists use Relativity, perhaps wrongly, to further this disintegration.
What is the baseline direction that R is forcing us to step back from? Do you mean Relativity is forcing us back into an era of 'always believe what you see?'
As stated many posts back. A mirage appears to reflect a thirst quenching oasis. If I trust my observation, I may be led in the wrong direction.
This is a loaded question that overlaps philosophy, science, existence and time. First, if you mean by a single reality that there is a possibility of an observation of a phenomenon which is not the phenomenon, then we have covered that. The observation of a supernova 27 light years away, is a 27 light year old image. It is an observation not the object. If you are speaking of a grand single reality which all humanity has in common within the realm of physics, then science counts on a singel reality. The ability to understand how it all works. All of the constants and measurements, this foundations of our understanding are further and further refined. The physical interactions and entities which make up our universe may continually evade complete understanding, but we standardize measurements and continue to delve deeper and farther. An atom of Hydrogen is an atom of Hydrogen throughout the universe. Do you deny this single reality? How close can a single Hydrogen get before it becomes H2? If I spend billions of dollars building a % of light speed ship that uses the contraction of rods as an actual physical effect of near light speed with the purpose of creating useful substances by compressing them beyond any non speed of light physical contraction, then there better damn well be a consensus that it is a REAL effect and not just a phantom measurement.
Has the periodic table been tossed out the window? Atomic weights? Planck's constant? The speed of light? Now who is entering in the philosophical realm of realness? Anti-relativists are usually the ones who ask what is a measurement? Of course there is a physical process which occurs that is removed from the actual when we measure, whether by eye or electronic detector. Henri Bergson does an interesting job philosophizing between an object and the observation and how it is an abstraction. This abstraction may move closer and closer to the sum of the parts, but it will never BE the object. The big BUT is that we standardize our measures and test systems. You are a philosophical deconstructionist if you are saying that we can trust no measure specifically, but we must trust generalized SR measurements. The correct testability of a measure of the real is obviously the proximity and consistency of the tool of measurement.
The observed distortion is 'real' but the object is not physically distorted. If I stick my hand in the water and you see that it has been bent drastically by the refractive index and your position, are you claiming that my arm has in reality been physically deformed or is it the apparent disfiguration caused by the properties of light and medium refraction?
First, I will look up the various versions of this experiment and evaluate the data. There are references to it in the previous link. Some of them prove the same thing Lorentz did by analyzing the M-M experiments.There are conflicting views on this experiment. Two, re-read your circular argument; a) relativity requires actual distortion, b) spin a disc, c) Relativity say that the disc MUST undergo a contraction, d) ergo this predicted contraction can only happen if the material can deform, e) Therefore, Relativity correctly says that materials can contract. Materials can contract under circumstances, any Freshman in college physics knows this prior to the first class. The contractability of materials is not in question, it is the explanation of contractions that is in question. The atomic structures are astounding in the amount of space, the possible interactions between the 'points' of material can be contracted or expanded depending upon the combination of forces which act upon them. Relativity may give satisfactory results, but these results may be as satisfactory as the Lorentz transformation were in 'proving' the ether due to a null result.
You are overstating Relativity and the focus of Relativistic physicists. If you are correct, then why the focus on the one immutable truth of a Unified Field Theory. There is still an immutable truth being sought in the ability to make all known phenomenon fit within a unified framework. Your take on the step back seems to involve something deeper..perhaps a desire that rests in a personal philosophy or spirituality?
Just to be clear, this has never been my assumption. There are two different veins. 1. Is a distortion real or observed and 2. What is the cause of the distortion
For the purposes of physics, there is a discernable tapestry...a consistent reality[absolute in my mind, meaning there is an understandable and cohesive interconnectedness which can be understood.] Some may interpret this too materialistically...perhaps it should be defined as the standardization of measures and standardization of vocabulary of communication. Speakers of two languages must find a synchronicity in order to communicate as fully as possible.
I agree. To expand, we must know that what we measure corresponds to a real rather than an apparent, to the substance not the accident, to put it in Aristotelean words.
Given the limits of human foible-ridden intellects, I agree, but you part company with a large majority of Relativists, and I think, most cosmologists.
We are in complete agreement in your quote. ***tip back undistorted cognac glass for a sip*** cheers....
The range of perception may blend philosophy, psychology and physiology as well as the linguistics of naming colors, but you are leaving out physics' attempt to standardize. The range of color we call blue has a specific frequence range. This definability within the realm of science is what consitutes the substance, the objective reality which allows physics, and all sciences to intellegently discuss, expound and develop theorizations and experimentations.
This is no earth shaking statement describing an arbitrary existence. If, Within a solitary framework a ruler thought to measure 1 meter, but it is off by a few centimeters. We develop an architectural plan using this ruler. The same ruler is mass produced for teh work crew and we complete a building. Within this framework, this standard is acceptable. The standardization issue is critical when we expand our scope to cover other frameworks.
Do you need a qualifier? Either the measurements correspond to a phenomenon or they do not. If you want to define reality as that which can never be understood, then science must have no real meaning. If I throw a rock at your head, and you are unable to dodge my perfect aim, and you are klonked in the forehead, we can discuss the Scientific, the Physiological, the Psychological, the Philosophical, the Geological, et al., arenas of this interaction, the reality of the interaction is that one sentient entity slung a non-sentient entity at another sentient entity and the impacted entity becomes unhappy. I may agree that this world is but a veil over something grander and fully unattainable by our senses, but within the framework of our existence in this universe, there are fundamental signifiers of phenomenon. This consistent phenomenon, whether on the sensory surface or the further elaboration of the fundamental interactions is refered to as reality. Are you a subscriber to the Deconstructionist camp? Just curious.
So it is round when it is created in % of c and round when deposited back on earth [as the stationary FOR.] If the shortening of its length parallel to the direction of travel is a real phenomenon, then how can glass, that oh so marvelous substance, take the impact of bending and distorting to round from one FOR [% of c] to another[stationary.] Do you agree that the shortening of rods is an appearance of shortening, rather than an actual shortening? If you say the shortening is a real phenomenon, then I say, 'pshaw', the glass being forced into being round from an oval shape would shatter under the forces. Glass has a limited elasticity that Relativity claims to bypass, does it?
Correct..., this was a question of curiousity. I rarely argue invalidation of argument due to belief.
We may have covered it somewhat, but there is still a huge difference between appearance and reality. I could say teh same thing...that I have given many examples where my 'observation' does not reflect the 'reality.' 1. My arm appears to be broken out of shape by the refraction of water...the reality is the observation...the measurement of the image shows a distortion which is not real in the object being observed. 2. Desert road mirages may show multiple reflections and refractions of an object, say a truck, and the appearances are distorted in ways in which the actual materials of the object could not tolerate without complete disintegration.
i will attempt to be Germanic....this is not an azttempt to be condescending, it seems to be necessary since we can only go by what words we type.
You basically answered the question. If the reality of the system is based on observation alone, and this observation ends any necessity of further inquiry into the basis of the phenomenon, then it is a phantom phenomenon with no basis in reality and it reeks of pseudo-science. If the glass does not really crystallize in a contracted way, then basically it is a snapshot of the reality of the FOR.
You must be kidding....
The observation of a % of c object from the 'twin' at rest FOR is flawed. The SR Lorentzian formulas illustrate the flaw. A correction formula can easily correct for the flawed observations with a result of the real length...one which is synchronized to our accepted standard.
If you say the observation is as real as the actual physical configuration of the object of observation, then why should it matter whether it is broke or not? If the arm is broken in such a way that the refracted image appears to show an unbroken arm, is the physical configuration of the arm not broken? The observation of what appears to be an unbroken arm is a result of an optical flaw , so to speak. There is in reality an arm broken...a physical construct of an arm which is broken. You seem to be raising flawed measurement and conclusions of data to the level of reality when in fact it is faulty, misleading data leading to faulty, misleading conclusions.
Not according to Relatavists and Quantumists...everytime a wall is claimed, some 'new' discovery is made. Your two sentences form a thesis and antithesis which always will drive a cycle of synthesis and return to Thesis and Antithesis. A wall cannot be hit and no guarantee of a reality cannot co-exist as a settled issue in physics. Aren't you now arguing Zeno's paradox transferred to the realm of knowledge?
You may not have said it directly, but you implied it by saying, 'From who's point of view?' My proposition was to put sodium and chlorine in close proximity, not creating salt directly. The proposition was illustrating the falseness of the proposition that a contraction other than a measurement distortion takes place. Either you did not understand the proposition, or you are evading the issue of whether the contraction of rods has any meaning other than a measurement of distortion by an At Rest FOR of % of c FOR.
Then no % of c light speed can effect any chemical bonding, therefore there is no contraction except in rest FOR measurement of % of c FOR.