Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that It would be impossible to realign the earth and the fixed stars such that both are at rest with the coordinate system of the plasticine

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mach's principle holds that inertial frames are determined relationally by the global mass distribution, not by an independently existing metrical field.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If inertial structure is fully constituted by matter relations, a coherent redescription exists in which redistributed masses define new rest conditions without invoking a fixed conformal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Weyl's appeal to the conformal field as a constraint presupposes the very absolute-vs-relational distinction that Machian relationism contests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kretschmann's point establishes that any physical law can be reformulated in a generally covariant form, making coordinate-invariant impossibility claims suspect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'impossibility' of realignment may reflect a limitation of a particular representational framework rather than a genuine modal constraint on physical configurations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The conformal metrical field determines at each point the cones of light propagation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The microsymmetry group of the conformal structure permits only 7 degrees of freedom (6 Lorentz transformations and a dilatation) plus four more in second order
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The existence of the conformal metrical field prevents an arbitrary realignment of light-like fibers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.