If geometric assumptions are conventions rather than empirical necessities, the rigid-body assumption is one choice among empirically equivalent alternatives, not a precondition of measurement validity.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Precondition(as what recognitive practices are for conceptual content): Something that must exist or happen first, before something else can exist or happen.
conventions(Central concept in conventionalism; distinct from written rules but nonetheless binding through social enforcement.): Collectively agreed-upon norms that operate within a game alongside its formal rules.
empirical necessities(as used in epistemology and philosophy of science): Things that absolutely must be true based on what we observe in the real world, not just because we decided they should be.
empirically equivalent alternatives(as used in philosophy of science): Different theories or approaches that make exactly the same predictions about what we'll observe in experiments, even though they're based on different ideas.
geometric assumptions(as used in philosophy of mathematics and physics): Basic rules or starting points we accept about shapes and space (like 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line') without proving them first.
measurement validity(as used in philosophy of science and epistemology): Whether a measurement actually tells us something true and meaningful about what we're trying to measure.
rigid-body assumption(as used in physics and philosophy of measurement): The idea that objects don't bend or change shape when we measure them—a basic assumption physicists make when taking measurements.

2 topics