The discussion centers on the definition of the position of an object, emphasizing that position is fundamentally tied to interaction and observation. Participants argue that position can be defined as a set of coordinates in a chosen reference frame, but also highlight that it can be described without coordinates, such as by relative distances. Theoretical concepts like tetrads and timelike vector fields are introduced, suggesting that position has both a mathematical and experimental definition. Ultimately, the consensus is that position is a property of interaction, making it essential to understand how objects relate to one another in space.
PREREQUISITESStudents and professionals in physics, mathematicians, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of measurement and observation in defining physical properties.
I only believe that an observer or position detector will give the trajectory as predicted by laws of motion . Think of position as just a value given by a position detector with respect to time. Then there will be no meaning of position without observerrenormalize said:Your reasoning is still unclear to me. Can you answer this: do you, or do you not, believe that a random planetoid in the asteroid-belt follows a well-defined orbital trajectory as a function of time, regardless of whether that particular body has ever been observed by anyone or anything (such as astronomers, space probes or even aliens)?
That is literally the opposite of what I asked. This thread is going nowhere. Thread locked.quantum philosopher said:OK now I will be very specific . Define what is position (in any way that you want)