Yuri,

I do not think that way about professionals. There is variety among them as there is among any group, but, PHD's have earned the credentials necessary to speak as authorities. Their responsibilities as extensive and time consuming. Even cordial replies sometimes must wait. They face a difficulty in responding to non-professionals.

If they respond at all the chances are the correspondence will become prolonged and usually for no good reason. The worst thing they can do is try to be diplomatic. Most non-professionals, who are always swarming to contact the professionals, take politeness as an invitation to teach the professional. Surely you know that almost all non-professional evaluations of theoretical physics are clearly wrong.

If the professionals are honest in their evaluations, they are often treated disrespectfully. When they can and do give of their time and their opinion it should be accepted gracefully. Wait and while waiting don't use words like 'arrogantism'. If you don't receive a response then try somewhere else. I say this as someone who is occasionally treated disrespectfully and censored by professionals.

Appreciate that you have the chance to rub elbows with professionals. If that is all you receive from some, it is more than you will receive elsewhere. It should be clear to you and to all that I have been around the Internet for many years and there is no place better to have a chance to say what one thinks scientifically than exists here.

This is the only place that I converse with professionals other than if they contact me first through email. I never contact them elsewhere. If they see something I say as deserving a compliment, there are some who would and have stepped forward and said so and I thank them for that.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #167

James,

Do you now Professor Stenger from Colorado?

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Home.html

Fundamental constants - field his research

Yuri,

I don't know him. If I did know him as an acquaintance, I would be sure to not talk about physics with him. I have a close relationship with a physics professor and never would I drag him into a discussion about my ideas. The Internet is a fine medium for discourse. It isn't totally relationship free, but, one can usually speak honestly about what they think. Often the conversation remains focused. Relationships, to whatever extent they exist, are of lesser concern and perhaps don't have an affect. In real life I don't burden friends with my ideas about physics. The relationships mean more. As I said in my other message, I never contact professionals directly unless it is to answer their emails. They get plagued enough!

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #169

I once found from the russian article reference to his aticle. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/MonkeyGod.pdf

It seems to me interesting. I am not familiar with him.

    Yuri,

    I have read from his writings. He is not here so I don't have an opinion to give. If a professional introduced someone else's, perhaps Stenger's, writings into a conversation, then I would probably address those writings. Perhaps you have noticed that I speak in my own words about my own ideas and do not reference other's works. I feel free to speak about the work of persons like Newton and Einstein. I think that Einstein messed up theoretical physics. He has a great many defenders,so, I don't think I am being unfair because of his absence. I think I have only spoken critically about other professional's ideas when they expressed their ideas here as part of FQXi. I know then that they could respond if they feel it is necessary.

    I recognize that your message was not asking for all of this, but, in light of your use of the word 'arrogantism' I thought I should make my own opinions clear about professionals and the works of professionals.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #171

    Should be free competition of ideas.Needed immediately clash and fight.Life is boring without it.

    Joy,

    I put your name in the address only because I use a phrase quoted from your message at Tom's place. I don't expect you to put in any extra time on this. I know you have greater important challenges. But, I am borrowing a phrase you used:

    "It arises from our attempt to fix the problem by hand rather than following the natural course of mathematics."

    Well, here comes one of the messages that is self-serving and that I hate to bother professionals with, however, Joy's statement is as close as I have seen by a professional to appear to me to be saying what I want said. First let me hasten to add that I feel certain that we do not mean it the same way. But, for me, the natural course of mathematics cannot tolerate multiple guesses. Each one is risky and multiple guesses fill theory with very high risk for having gone astray.

    My point is this: There are guesses involved in the introductory fundamentals of theoretical physics. I think that each of them is wrong. I have pointed to the mathematical definition of mass as the first guess, later with each of the others, that took theory away from 'the natural course of mathematics'. When I say that properties of theoretical physics must be expressible in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existences are inferred, I am saying physics should instead follow 'the natural course of mathematics'.

    The guesses, as in the case of mass, introduce artificiality onto the equations. Those equations, pointing as usual to f=ma, begin as empirical equations reflecting that which empirical evidence has communicated to us. As soon as the theorist adds their guess and chooses to make mass an indefinable property, solidified into the equation by means of its indefinable unit of kilograms, that equation is no longer following 'the natural course of mathematics'.

    From my perspective, the natural course of mathematics requires that we adhere to that which empirical evidence gives us to work with. In terms of units, it gives us only distance and duration, meaning meters and seconds.

    James

    Joy,

    I have used your phrase 'natural course of mathematics' over at Fred's place. I did not mention your name or make any connection to you. I hope you don't mnd. It seemed best considering the ideas I write about. I like your phrase and will probably use it again as I think more about my own perspective on the 'natural course of mathematics' with regard to my work. It began with your meaning and not with mine. If you prefer that I avoid using it in order to avoid my possibly causing confusion, then I will do so.

    James

    Gravity is a force. Newton's theory of gravity makes clear that there is no reason for anything to feel fee-fall until they reach the point where the force of gravity becomes clearly non-linear in its local application. The theory of the event horizon of black-holes sets up an example of gravity tearing any object apart. The obvious reason for objts to be torn apart is that gravity is a force. It causes acceleration. It uses the same mass. It can stress or tear objects apart. That is what forces do. Any force that is evenly applied will not be felt.

    James

    • [deleted]

    • Post #175

    James, gravity is definitely a force. What makes it a force is F=ma (fundamentally) in conjunction with the fundamental equivalence between inertia and gravity (i.e., inertial and gravitational "mass") and balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Why do you think our visible bodies do not sink into the visible earth (contract or expand)? (Notice also that the invisible body/eye [experience] enjoins invisible space as well when looking down at the ground.

    My essay, soon to be posted, proves all of this. Einstein's GR is far more lacking and ungrounded than is presumed. I proved this too.

    Gravity is fundamental to stabilized distance in/of space. A fact.

      Frank,

      I am glad to see you have enterred an essay. Perhaps it will posted. I don't agree with your ideas. But you have the opportunity to say your piece in your own words. Best wishes.

      James

      I recognize that one of my messages posted here a few days ago referred to the wrong person. I deleted it and apologize to that person. I will not name the person that I incorrectly identified. The message is gone.

      James

      7 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #178

      Hello James,

      Couldn't let this pass without knocking at your post leaving a comment. I remember you fondly two years ago when I first started blogging in this forum and you were so kind to respond with encouraging words.

      As to your current essay. There would be no question about the variability of the speed of light if light were to be recognized propagating as a wave. And surely, the medium of propagation would determine its speed. Sometimes slower and sometimes faster. To just this point I like to add an important result found at End Note III) of my essay,"The Metaphysics of Physics". There, I mathematically show that light propagates as a wave!

      Good luck in this contest!

      Constantinos

        Consantinos Ragazas,

        Hi, I glad to see you are doing quite well in the ratings. I remember that your work included some correct answers that we both agree on. With regard to a wave nature, which is what I assume you are referring to by 'propogating as a wave'. My first essay here for the Nature of Time contest included, among other very important results, the derivation of Maxwell's equations without including electric charge, and no elecric or magnetic fields. In other words, nothing to make a wave out of. Each of my essays presents original work that does not include a wave nature. I will stick with my photon model. Along with extensive important results, it includes unity for all properties right from the beginning of the derivation of theory. Good luck to you in the contest.

        James

        James you write,

        "... [my] derivation of Maxwell's equations without including electric charge, and no elecric or magnetic fields. In other words, nothing to make a wave out of"

        Likewise! My derivation showing light propagates as a wave (ie. the wave equation is satisfied) also includes "nothing to make a wave out of". This is a natural conclusion, having shown light is a wave! And the 'ether' of light propagation? This turns out to be the 'quantity eta' in my papers! Which is the 'time-integral of energy'. Planck's constant h is an example of such a quantity!

        I am glad you remember something of our past exchanges! These were over 'thermodynamics entropy' and the proportionality I had derived between entropy and physical time. Namely, ΔS = kνΔt , where k is Boltzmann's constant and ν is frequency (or 'rate of evolution/devolution' is more closer to the 'truth' - both positive OR negative real number). This determines 'physical time' to be 'duration', Δt, and not 'instantiation', t. And leads to a more sensible rewording of the Second Law to say "every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur". Thus putting into question the Spacetime continuum modeling Nature with 'eventpoints' at each 'instant' t. And helps 'locate' all the 'missing mass-energy' of the Universe that goes by the alias 'dark'.

        Constantinos

        P.S. Read Eric Reiter's excellent essay, "A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory", describing experimental findings in agreement with my mathematical conclusions that "energy propagates continuously as a wave while it interacts discretely" and "before manifestation there is accumulation of energy". What he calls 'loading'.

        7 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #181

        James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 22:37 GMT

        Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

        I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that is my opinion. I think though that your approach has more opportunity to draw serious debate. I hope it happens. Your arguments deserve to be evaluated.

        James

        >>>>

        James,

        Thank you for taking the time to read my entry, (#1525) and comment.

        I have been to Eric Reiter's laboratory, and truly respect his fine work. He is a genius!

        I found several discussions here concerning the contraction of length between reference frames, and now cannot decide where to make this comment, so I'll just post it here:

        I had to cut this thought from my essay, to comply with the forum parameters:

        In his "Measuring the Moving Train from the Platform" Gedankin, (paraphrased) Albert postulates why the train should be shorter (contracted) than the same train measured at rest with the platform: As the train approaches the platform, a technician marks the platform exactly when the front of the train reaches him, and simultaneously signals another technician at the the receding end of the platform to mark the back end of the train. Since the train keeps moving while the signal propagates to the rear, the train has moved forward by the time the rear technician makes the mark on the platform, making the measurement "contracted."

        Now, by measuring the train from back to front, and having the rear technician send the signal forward, the same basic experiment measures the moving train longer than at rest! (since the train is now moving with the propagating signal) So the length of the moving train depends upon whether the initial measurement is at the back or the front. The third Illustration (in my essay) aptly shows this expansion vs compression that is ignored in conventional reasoning.

        I hope this comment adds to your discussion.

        BTW, You are a right handsome gentleman. Your personable appearance reinforces your very civil attitude shown in your posts! (Mom always told me to keep my hands out of my pockets. I never do either!)

        All the best, Curt Youngs

        • [deleted]

        • Post #182

        Dear Curt Youngs,

        Thank you for your message. I thought hands belonged in pockets. I would try to argue that it is natural except that I remember that during world war II the French had to keep reminding American's in occupied France to not put their hands in their pockets. French men did not do that. You have a visitor's challenging message posted for you in your forum.

        James

        9 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #183

        I appreciate the way you handle your critics! You are a gentleman and a scholar.

        Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 22:32 GMT

        "Regarding time dilation and length contraction. The speed of light equals length divided by time."

        I think this is relevant: There has been discussion of whether there is even a such thing as speed. One of the posts said "speed does not exist, only motion exists."

        Well, my comment is that motion is the abstracted "object of study," speed is the measurement of said motion. A universe with only one object in it cannot have motion, as there is nothing to compare (or measure) the motion.

        Now, back to "The speed of light equals length divided by time." I say this statement falls short of actually measuring speed, it is just too ambiguous. The direct way to find the speed of some object under investigation is to measure the elapsed time the object takes to travel a measured distance. Thus the "distance" must be somewhere besides "on the object, itself."*

        Thus, I would state: "The speed of a pulse of light equals the distance traveled by the pulse, divided by the elapsed time." Any reference to "speed" must include the point in the reference frame to which said speed will have meaning.

        In regards to "Regarding time dilation and length contraction," I understand that Einstein is trying to reconcile Lorentz's view of electrodynamics. I am not sure Lorentz thoroughly appreciated the "motion situation." This post cannot accommodate a discussion of that.

        If the only justification for "time dilation" and "length contraction" are his two "Gedankens," the "Mirror light clock" with his imaginary diagonal going "photon," and his "Measuring the moving train from the platform" stories; they fall very short of meeting the actual reality of our existence.

        In his "Measuring the Moving Train from the Platform" Gedankin, (paraphrased) Albert postulates why the train should be shorter (contracted) than the same train measured at rest with the platform: As the train approaches the platform, a technician marks the platform exactly when the front of the train reaches him, and simultaneously signals another technician at the the receding end of the platform to mark the back end of the train. Since the train keeps moving while the signal propagates to the rear, the train has moved forward by the time the rear technician makes the mark on the platform, making the measurement contracted.

        Now, by measuring the train from back to front, and having the rear technician send the signal forward, the same basic experiment measures the moving train longer than at rest! So the length of the moving train depends upon whether the initial point of measurement is at the back or the front of the train.

        My essay, (Thank you for your comments there) I hope, demonstrates the shortfall in Einstein's logic.

        (*Rotating speed is under the same requirement, however the centrifugal/centripetal force of acceleration is another way to determine "motion" in that case, alternately, gravitational acceleration of an object residing on the surface of another provides an instance of acceleration without motion . . . )

        • [deleted]

        • Post #184

        Curt,

        Taking a few points for discussion at this time:

        "Now, back to "The speed of light equals length divided by time." I say this statement falls short of actually measuring speed, it is just too ambiguous."

        Concentrating only on my use of the word length: I choose the word length in order to emphasize that measurement of distance occurs by physical means. I find it necessary to repeatedly emphasize that the measurement process tells us nothing about space except that we exist within it. Relativists have no empirical basis for explaining anything about changes to space. All empirical evidence is in the form of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. My use of the word length is intended to avoid linking my statment wth the tendency of theorists to project patterns beyond their empirical meanings.

        They imagine and invent and, by injecting their inventions into equations, they distort the meaning of physics. The process by which those unempirically justified inventions become permanent parts of physics equations is through the invention of indefinable units of measurement. There are only two naturally indefinable units of measurement. They are the units of length and time. They are the units of empirical evidence. All other units are unnecessary and are theoretically devisive. By devisive I mean that they are the means by which disunity is introduced into theoretical physics. That disunity is the price we pay for tolerating the loose, overextended, speculative nature of what we presently call physics theory.

        The visual aids used to explain or justify relativity theory involve length and clocks. Length is object dependent. Clocks are speed of objects dependent. Speed is a rate of change. Length varies as objects vary. Clocks vary as speed varies. Length does not represent the property of space and clocks do not represent the property of time. Example problems involving length and clocks tell us only about concepts involving length and clocks. I find no usefulness for the visual aids put forward in defense of relativity theory.

        James

        • [deleted]

        • Post #185

        Curt,

        Thought I would mention an obvious abuse by theoretical physicsts. Entropy is relied heavily upon by thorists. It is put forward by them as if it is understood. There are substitute 'entropies' put forward which are unrelated to thermodynamic entropy. The first substitute was introduced by Boltzmann. Each one that followed was only another substitute. Behind them all lies the unadmitted fact that physicists do not know what thermodynamic entropy, as first defined by Clausius, is. In introductions purporting to explain entropy it is skipped passed in favor of other concepts that they understand. I chose to mention this because it is an example of abuse that obfuscation cannot hide.

        James