Tom,

""Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone.""

"You have suggested an experiment to show physical spatial contraction in zero time? James, please."

No I haven't. I guess we are not communicating well. Time passes at a fundamentally constant universal rate. That rate does not have its own rate of change. Its cange is a constant everywhere in the universe. There is no spacial contraction. Your choice of words might include consideration of space contraction. There is length contraction. Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space.

The absolute universal period of time is the time it takes for a photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is photons that suffer length contraction. It is that change in photon length that results in length contraction of objects. Photons suffer length contraction for two reasons. One is due to their slowing speed as they approach mass. The other is due to the object which contains them having a velocity with respect to the gravitational field through which it is passing. There is no circumstance that involves length contraction of objects in zero time.

James Putnam

    "Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space."

    Matter doesn't occupy space? The flaw here, James, is the failure to realize that any real measurement of change in relative position between points is always taken between points of mass, never between points of space.

    What you're suggesting, is that one may observe a meter stick to contract in its direction of motion by, say, 1/2 in an absolute space; i.e., the mass endpoint of the stick has a constant relation to the spatial point once occupied by the stick's endpoint, which an outside observer at rest relative to the meter stick measured to be one meter in length. You would say that the stick in motion that measures only half a meter (which means it would be traveling at about 3/4 the speed of light) is the "real" physics.

    Apparently without realizing it, you are assigning an absolute value to the observer at rest. The fact of the case is that there is no privileged observer frame -- to a hypothetical observer sitting on the stick, the stick still measures one meter in length; it is the other observer's frame that appears contracted. "All physics is local," as Einstein put it.

    "The absolute universal period of time is the time it takes for a photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is photons that suffer length contraction."

    There is no time interval from a photon's point of view; therefore, no point which a photon can "pass." The interval is infinitely extended (my essay explains this point at infinity).

    Tom

    Tom,

    ""Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space.""

    "Matter doesn't occupy space? The flaw here, James, is the failure to realize that any real measurement of change in relative position between points is always taken between points of mass, never between points of space.

    What you're suggesting, is that one may observe a meter stick to contract in its direction of motion by, say, 1/2 in an absolute space; i.e., the mass endpoint of the stick has a constant relation to the spatial point once occupied by the stick's endpoint, which an outside observer at rest relative to the meter stick measured to be one meter in length. You would say that the stick in motion that measures only half a meter (which means it would be traveling at about 3/4 the speed of light) is the "real" physics.

    Apparently without realizing it, you are assigning an absolute value to the observer at rest. The fact of the case is that there is no privileged observer frame -- to a hypothetical observer sitting on the stick, the stick still measures one meter in length; it is the other observer's frame that appears contracted. "All physics is local," as Einstein put it."

    There are privileged observer framse. They are observers who are at rest with respect to the local graviational field. All measurements are local. Physics is not local in a gravitational field. The stick shrinks while the observer who is stationary with respect to the local graviational field does not shrink. For an observer who travels with the stick and suffers the same shrinkage, the stick does still measure one meter. However. for that same observer, an identical stick stationary in the local gravitational field would appear, only appear, to grow in length. All measurement is local. All measurement is local because it is linked to the length of photons. When photons shrink then any measuring rod containing those photons will also shrink. Yet that rod will retain its meter markings as if it still is a meter in length. The stick or rod stationary in the local gravitational field will not have shrunk and its meter markings will also say it is a meter long.

    With regard to special relativity, if there are two sticks pointing toward each other and moving toward each other there be no length contraction for either one. They would remain identical in length. That length would be their original length measured when they are stationary with respect to each other. Without a graviational field there would be no relativity type effects. Problems solved as if gravity does not exist are purely theoretical.

    ""The absolute universal period of time is the time it takes for a photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is photons that suffer length contraction.""

    "There is no time interval from a photon's point of view; therefore, no point which a photon can "pass." The interval is infinitely extended (my essay explains this point at infinity)."

    So says relativity theory. However, relativity theoy is wrong. One reason is that time dilation does not exist. My firs essay 'The Absoluteness of Time' gives the standard universally fundamental increment of time by which the clock of the universe is held invariant.

    James Putnam

    "My firs essay 'The Absoluteness of Time' gives the standard universally fundamental increment of time by which the clock of the universe is held invariant."

    I realize that, James. However " ... the increment of time, as measured by a photon ..." is not possible -- a photon is always emitted at the speed of light. Therefore, the only point to which a photon can be at rest (which is an absolute requirement for you to have a photon "pass a given point" as you claim), is a point at infinity.

    Your absolute increment of time is infinity. Which is why all observations are unitary and all physics is local.

    Tom

    Tom,

    "I realize that, James. However " ... the increment of time, as measured by a photon ..." is not possible -- a photon is always emitted at the speed of light. Therefore, the only point to which a photon can be at rest (which is an absolute requirement for you to have a photon "pass a given point" as you claim), is a point at infinity.

    Your absolute increment of time is infinity. Which is why all observations are unitary and all physics is local."

    I miss the point? A photon passing a given point is not at rest. The point involved can be any point that is stationary within the gravitational field. Perhaps I gave the impression that my 'point' can have its own velocity within the gravitational field? Whatever the impression given was, A point is always passed by a photon which is (the photon) moving at the speed of light with respect to the point. Take a isolated gravitational source. It provides the gravitational background field. Any stationary point within that field is one of my 'any given points'. Any photon moving through that gravitational field will move through it at the speed of light C when measured locally.

    The speed of light from a remote perspective increases with increasing distance away from the gravitational source. It increases at the rate at which gravity decreases. As an aside point, photons are emitted at the speed of light C if measured locally. From a remote perspective it is emitted at a lower speed than C. Its rate of change of speed with distance depends upon the polarity and mass of the particle emitting it. For practical purposes it reaches a speed very close to C, even from the remote perspective, within a distance equal to the radius of the first energy level of the hydrogen atom. That length of approximately 5.0x10^-11 meters is calculated in my work as 4.8x10^-11 meters. That calculation represents a local measurement.

    The hydrogen atom that I use in this example is considered to be stationary with respect to the gravitational field. If it is not stationary, then the remote perspective is affected. The speed of light will slow even more for a photon emitted from a hydrogen nucleus that has a velocity relative to the background gravitational field. The slowing of the speed of light, for that moving hydrogen atom, is the cause of its increase in mass. The mass of the hydrogen atom is defined in terms of the acceleration of the light emitted from it.

    That is my view resulting from returning the equations of physics back to their empirical roots beginning with defining mass in terms of its empirical evidence. That empirical evidence is patterns in changes of velocity.

    I still don't understand why you say that I infer that '...a photon can be at rest'?

    James Putnam

    "I still don't understand why you say that I infer that '...a photon can be at rest'?"

    I've tried to make it as obvious as I can. In the most basic terms, a measurement has to have endpoints -- if you want to claim that the increment of time is absolute, short of infinity, there must exist an initial point at which the photon is at rest relative to the final point which you say that it passes.

    You write, "A point is always passed by a photon which is (the photon) moving at the speed of light with respect to the point."

    This is the same as saying that the photon passes itself. Think of Einstein's thought experiment, in which he imagines observing his reflection in a mirror -- he accelerates to near the speed of light, holding the mirror in front of his face -- does his image disappear? Point is: independent of the motion of the observer, as shown by the lapse of time required for the image to be reflected back, there is no photon rest state and therefore no measurable fixed point in time that a photon can "pass."

    One might ask, "what about photons that are slowed when passing through a medium, compared to those that are not?" -- there's a physical principle known since at least Fermat (law of least action), and probably longer, that informs us that light always travels in the straightest line possible. At relativsitic distances, it's the geodesic, which gives us Einstain lensing. In our normal world, the effect is seen in a stick placed in water, in which the underwater portion appears bent, because the photons traveling through the water reach our eyes later than those through air -- the bent stick is not physically real, however; if it were, then your conclusion that there is some fixed point by which photon motion can be measured, would be true. It isn't true, though, because we know that the relation between the stick and our observing it is uniformly straight -- the photons are not positively accelerating as would be required for a genuine physical curve with a choice of endpoints for the curvature.

    The speed of light is absolute; not variable.

    Tom

    Tom,

    Ok, I understand about the end points. I am referring to any photon passing a point in the universe. That point is stationary with respect to its local gravitational background field. The reason I do not use two points is that the photon has length. It has a front 'point' and an end 'point'.

    I also understand that you are using relativity theory as your standard for correctness and I am using an alternative viewpoint because I do not consider relativity theory to be the standard for correctness.

    I acknowledge that your talent for abstract thought is very high.

    This is probably a good time to take a break again for awhile. Your messages have great value. I will leave you alone for now, but, look forward to future discussions. Thank you for sharing your views.

    James Putnam

    22 days later

    Et tu Thomas? :)

    I can respond to this and will prepare the response:

    "A few years ago, I was scandalized by James Putnam's claim that Newton's equation f = ma is wrong. It clearly isn't wrong -- one unit of force is equal to one unit of mass multiplied by one unit of acceleration, which we can directly test. Later I came to understand that he means that "mass" is undefined in the equation; in this he is certainly mistaken -- the calculation of the values of the equation are independent of how "force" and "mass" are defined. We could just as well make it a theorem: f = m. That is, mass is defined to be the quantity for which f - m = 0. It is trivial to mathematically prove this relation. Likewise, it is trivial to mathematically prove the relation between mass and rest energy, E = m, whose algebraic reduction E - m = 0 as it happens is identical to the reduction of Newton's f - m. In other words, we don't lose any physical meaning in either Newton or Einstein by truncating those seminal equations to their essentials -- they mean the same thing. That is -- mass-energy at rest is of measure zero."

    No preview other than to state that your view does lose physical meaning. Others may read it for the first time. It needs to be detailed.

    The other blog with Joy, Michael, Jonathan and you conversing is great! The stress between the two main views is a valuable addition. It is one of the fruits of the contest.

    James Putnam

    Tom,

    I have moved my response to here in order to not interfere with the theoretical conversation that may be maturing in Michael's blog 'Is Quantum Theory As Fundamental As It Seems?'. I appreciate your mentioning my ideas. However, it is usually the case, and applies this time, that my view is best expressed by myself. I must admit that since meeting you on the Internet, I have been forced, thankfully, to grow and must again state my case better than before. Whether I am right or wrong, just a courtesy since I am right :), you have been a 'thorny-blessing'. Gee-whiz or, as I usually state it: Geez, when is someone going to understand.

    James Putnam

    Hi James,

    You have my heartfelt sympathy in reaching an understanding ear, if not my agreement that mass is an undefined quantity. I'm looking at it from a purely technical point of view; all definitions are presented in terms of other definitions. In other words, if "force" means something that is equivalent to "mass," then everything that force is defined to be, mass is defined to be. A hammer head, for example, that weighs 16 pounds (my grandfather was a blacksmith, and I actually have a hammer of that weight, though no longer the strength to swing it!) exerts a force greater than 16 pounds on an area the size of the hammer's face, when accelerated through a curve defined from an initial position to the terminal point (boundary conditions), so that the quantity 16 x pounds results from the value of the acceleration, i.e., how quickly some point on the hammer head changes position on the curve. So we can say that the hammer has a rest weight of 16 pounds and a "force weight" or net energy content, of 16 x pounds. Both of these, call them m and m', are well defined values of "mass."

    Einstein realized that these values -- the rest mass plus the energy added when the mass is accelerated -- measure the total energy content of the mass in states of accelerated motion. With the limit of accelerated motion (speed of light) the limit of accelerated mass-energy content at rest is precisely described by E = mc^2. This is a purely classical relation -- derived directly from Newton's laws of motion and Galilean relativity; in any acceleration curve, the uniform gravitational acceleration or locally variable acceleration of force vectors.

    In this classical relation, the motion of all massive matter is mediated by two influences: inertia and relativity. We don't know what causes inertia; we do know, however, how relative motion influences measurement results taken by observers in inertial frames at relative rest. Because empirical measure (either directly or inferentially) is the only way we have of determining what is physically real, and because the generalized principle of relativity informs us that no observer's frame can be said to be more physically real than another observer's, the uniformity of the physical laws is a core assumption of physics; i.e., we trust that the laws of physics are the same in every observer's inertial frame. That is not the same, BTW, as I have heard repeated in these fora, as saying "all inertial frames are equal" -- what it means is how Einstein called it: "All physics is local."

    Now, when we get down to what happens when the hammer face strikes the anvil (where the rubber meets the road, as Firestone ads used to say) -- we're not talking about local phenomena in the classical world we experience. We're talking about a whole lot of little bits of matter that appear to behave unitarily on the macroscopic classical scale, yet whose behavior on the microscopic scale is described by statistical measures -- statistical mechanics in classical terms, which is like a classical many-body world on a microscopic stage -- and then quantum mechanics, which gives us the particle "zoo" of the standard model, assumed nonlocal measurement behavior, Heisenberg uncertainty -- and, the model predicts: the origin of mass. In quantum field theory, mass is created in a field continuum -- which is analogous to the interactive continuum of mass and spacetime ("no space is empty of the field") in general relativity classical physics. In spite of all the problems (both theoretical and experimental) the idea is sound. And the goal is honorable: in explaining the origin of mass, to bring with it the explanation of inertia and a unitary explanation for gravitational and electromagnetic fields (string theory, which is an extension of QFT, already theoretically does this, yet lacks novel experimental predictions).

    Now:

    I agree with you that we don't know what mass is. We don't actually know what anything is. All we know is that there is something rather than nothing, and we don't even understand why, or even if, that has to be so. Physics doesn't essay to answer those questions, however -- physics questions are much more humble. In understanding how the world behaves as it does, we can only hope to grok even a little of why it is so, as a bonus, a by-product. "Just so" explanations or challenges to known physics don't add anything to what we know.

    This wasn't intended as a high school lecture on things you already know. It is intended to communicate the fundamental terms in which *I* understand physics. If you wish me to share *your* understanding, you have to successfully replace my terms with your own, and convince me to abandon what I think I know. That is hardly an impossible task -- within the space of about a year, Joy Christian changed my mind about Bell and nonlocality, and that is a very big deal. It may have in fact destroyed any chance I had to get published in mainstream media -- yet scientific truth is too precious to sell at any price.

    So there you go. You pays your money and you takes your chances. :-)

    All best,

    Tom

    Tom,

    Your messages are the kind of input I need to read. I believe that I address everything that needs to be addressed in a single sentence that I have repeatedly repeated: All properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is the evidence from which its existence was inferred.

    "You have my heartfelt sympathy in reaching an understanding ear, ..."

    Oh yeah? I think you already looking for smoke to see where the crash is ccurring. :) Ok, so it will take an essay's worth of effort to say the same thing that I have stated above. The response won't be tomorrow or possibly even next week. I need to prepare it and proof-fread it well (better than I did this last essay of mine).

    I hope that it is clear that I have high admiration for the preparation, intellect, innovativeness, inventiveness and high level thinking that theorist demonstrate. I love reading intelligent conversations here whether I agree with them or not. My point is that in answering your evaluation of my position about what is and is not definable, I turn back to myself.

    I think that theory is our problem. I think that the first step of introducing theory onto physics equations was the step to choose to make mass, it could have been force and made no difference in my argument, an indefinable property. That first step into theory opened Pandora's box of misrepresentations about the nature of the universe. Imagination has become the most important part, far beyond that which empirical evidence communicates to us, of physics analyses.

    Well it is my chore of my choosing. I will take it on.

    James Putnam

    Hi James,

    You write, "I believe that I address everything that needs to be addressed in a single sentence that I have repeatedly repeated: All properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is the evidence from which its existence was inferred."

    Good. May we deconstruct that statement into quantitative measure?

    If f = m is generalized to E = m and the empirical evidence shows conservation of mass-energy such that rest mass-energy = 0, then the terms of the results from empirical evidence that show conservation of mass-energy under acceleration to the limit of a constant (c), are identical to the theoretical prediction.

    Can you cite an instance of experimental result in which mass-energy is not conserved?

    Tom

    Tom,

    "If f = m is generalized to E = m and the empirical evidence shows conservation of mass-energy such that rest mass-energy = 0, then the terms of the results from empirical evidence that show conservation of mass-energy under acceleration to the limit of a constant (c), are identical to the theoretical prediction."

    Yes this is true. It does not, as a quantitative approach, contradict what I am saying. My sentence "All properties inferred to exist from empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is the evidence from which its existence was inferred." sets the criteria for anchoring physics equations to empirical evidence. Your example making use of mass, energy, and force uses these properties after they have been usurped by theoretical speculation. Your example uses properties that are not expressible in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence has been inferred. They are expressed as theoretical ideas of which went astray, from that which empirical evidence communicates to us, with the first invasion of theory onto physics equations. That first invasion was the decision that either force or mass had to be arbitrarily made an indefinable property joining the two naturally indefinable properties of length and duration. That act began the practice of inserting invented properties into physics equations.

    My sentence, with regard to both force and mass, is stating that both of those properties must be established as definable properties in f=ma. Definable properties are properties that are defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Definable units of measurement are units that are definable in terms of pre-existing units of measurement. It is the units that represent properties in physics equations. If those units are artificially indefinable, then so are the properties that they represent. When mass was assigned the artificially indefinable units of kilograms, mass became an artificially indefinable property. In other words, mass became an invented theoretical property instead of a property defined by its empirical evidence. The units of mass must be defined in terms of the units of its empirical evidence. Those units are meters and seconds only. Mass must have units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds only. Force then also receives units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds. That is how those two properties are expressed in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence was inferred.

    Maybe my response can be piecemeal after all. I am not clear about that yet. I felt that I had a better chance of being understood if I told the whole story in one presentation. However, it all starts with getting mass properly defined, meaning empirically justified. Theory must not be a part of this act. My last essay gave my example of how mass is definable in the same terms as the empirical evidence from which its existence was inferred. Once mass is established as a defined property, all other properties in mechanics follow suit.

    James Putnam

    "Your example making use of mass, energy, and force uses these properties after they have been usurped by theoretical speculation."

    No, James. My example shows that the theoretical prediction is identical to the experimental (empirical) result. The terms match. If they did not, one would expect that mass-energy is not conserved, and therefore Noether's theorem is wrong. I can live with "Bell's theorem" being wrong, based on a wrong choice of topology (the hidden variable); I can't live with Noether's theorem being wrong -- for that would imply that the same laws of physics are not uniform in time. (It would also contradict your own assertion that Newtonian time is the true measure of time.)

    Your assumption that there is an absolute rest mass (at rest relative to what?) is, I acknowledge, a deep question -- it goes back to Lemaitre's unasked question of whether the universe as a whole was ever at rest. We would never know that answer *in principle* by empirical methods, because empirical evidence reveals to us only relative motion. We can soundly reason Noether's generalized symmetry of universal dynamics from this empirical fact.

    "Mass must have units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds only."

    It does. One need not assume that the hammer has mass until it is translated to motion in spacetime resulting in force. Meters are measures of space (rods); seconds are measures of time (clocks).

    "Force then also receives units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds. That is how those two properties are expressed in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence was inferred."

    The empirical evidence tells us that the existence of force follows the existence of mass -- just as you claim -- though we do not find it necessary to make your assumption of the prior existence of mass in an absolute rest state, which is a metaphysical assumption incorporated neither into the physical (empirical) result nor the theory (kinetic theory of matter).

    "Once mass is established as a defined property, all other properties in mechanics follow suit."

    True. Your definition is not a definition, however; it is a metaphysical assumption. It is entirely equivalent to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

    Tom

    Tom,

    ""Your example making use of mass, energy, and force uses these properties after they have been usurped by theoretical speculation.""

    "No, James. My example shows that the theoretical prediction is identical to the experimental (empirical) result. The terms match. If they did not, one would expect that mass-energy is not conserved, and therefore Noether's theorem is wrong."

    The terms do match because they are designed to match. Whether they are defined properly or not, they will match whether one choses three indefinable fundamental properties or two indefinable fundamental properties. Predictions will follow so long as the form of the equations accurately models the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The difference is not the numbers. The difference is learning what physics looks like when invented properties are disallowed.

    Mass is a real property but its definition is artificial. It is made up. It is arbitarily made to be an indefinable property. There is no justification for this act. It was done only because theorists did not see how to pursue defining all properties in the same terms as the empirical evidence. That connection was broken without justification. The penalty paid ever since is disunity.

    "I can live with "Bell's theorem" being wrong, based on a wrong choice of topology (the hidden variable); I can't live with Noether's theorem being wrong -- for that would imply that the same laws of physics are not uniform in time. (It would also contradict your own assertion that Newtonian time is the true measure of time.)"

    Getting the definition of mass correct does not lead to contradiction in the operation of the universe. It can't. What it does do is establish the existence of unity right from the beginning of analyses.

    "Your assumption that there is an absolute rest mass (at rest relative to what?) is, I acknowledge, a deep question -- it goes back to Lemaitre's unasked question of whether the universe as a whole was ever at rest. We would never know that answer *in principle* by empirical methods, because empirical evidence reveals to us only relative motion. We can soundly reason Noether's generalized symmetry of universal dynamics from this empirical fact."

    I do not have an assumption that there is an absolute rest mass. Mass is always varying. Even with all other things being equal and constant, mass is still a variable. It varies with distance. With all other things being not equal and not constant, mass is varying both with and without distance.

    ""Mass must have units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds only.""

    "It does. One need not assume that the hammer has mass until it is translated to motion in spacetime resulting in force. Meters are measures of space (rods); seconds are measures of time (clocks)."

    Kilograms remains an indefinable unit. My point of making it a definable unit has nothing to do with needing relativity theory or any other theory for justification. It has to do with getting f=ma right at the beginning. Newton's f=ma must have mass and force defined in terms of length and duration. Both properties must begin their role in f=-ma with units that consist only of combinations of meters and seconds. Both force and mass must be and are definable using only the terms of empirical evidence.

    "Force then also receives units that are formed from some combination of meters and seconds. That is how those two properties are expressed in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence was inferred."

    "The empirical evidence tells us that the existence of force follows the existence of mass -- just as you claim -- though we do not find it necessary to make your assumption of the prior existence of mass in an absolute rest state, which is a metaphysical assumption incorporated neither into the physical (empirical) result nor the theory (kinetic theory of matter)."

    I don't have an absolute rest mass. I have an explanation for what mass is. That explanation comes from maintaining a direct conenection between empirical evidence. The manner in which that connection is maintained is to define mass and force in the terms of their empirical evidence.

    ""Once mass is established as a defined property, all other properties in mechanics follow suit.""

    "True. Your definition is not a definition, however; it is a metaphysical assumption. It is entirely equivalent to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover."

    This is a strange conclusion considering that my definition is solidly empirically based. I chose to not invent the definition of mass as an indefinable property. Mass is currently undefined. It doesn't have a definition. It isn't defined in terms of force because force is defined using an indefinable mass. It can't be defined in terms of energy. Having a relationship between mass and energy does not tell us what either one is unless we first know what one of them really is. I define mass. I define it right from its start of use in f=ma. Force and energy are then definable based upon an understanding of what mass is right from the start. Right from the beginning of Newton's f=ma.

    Tom

    Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objects. It consists solely of effects. Changes of velocity consist of measurements of length and duration. Length is not space and duration is not time. Length occupies space, Duration occurs while time passes. The object and its changes of velocity tell us only about the object. If an object does not exhibit changes of velocity, an impossibility, then we know nothing about the object. If objects do exhibit changes of velocity then we learn only about the properties of the objects. The fundamental equation modeling patterns in changes of velocity is f=ma. The empirical vidence is represented by a. The variations of patterns in that evidence tells us that there is a cause and there is a resistance to that cause. The cause is called force and the resistance to cause is called mass. No one knows what cause is and no one knows what mass is. We only know the roles they play in forming patterns of changes of velocity of objects. Everything that is to be learned about the roles they play must be discerned from patterns in changes of velocity. Everything that is said to be true about either cause or resistance to cause must be communicated by use of terms of empirical evidence only. Anything else added into that communication is imagined.

    James Putnam

    Theory is the practice of imagining what cause and resistance to cause may be. In the beginning they are given names only. Cause is called force and resistance to cause is called mass. In the equation f=ma, theorists imagine that neither force nor mass can be defined based upon the empirical evidence only. It is imagined that either force or mass must be given an invented identity in the equation. Mass was chosen to receive the invented identity. That identity was declared to be indefinable in terms of the empirical evidence. That decision changed f=ma from an empirically based equation to one subservient to the theory of an indefinable nature of mass. The manner in which that theory is forced onto f=ma is through the invention of the indefinable units of kilograms. The property of mass is represented in f=ma by its units. The introduction of kilograms into f=ma forces the equation to become theoretical. It began as an empirical equation modeling empirical evidence. That was its most useful form. It was changed into a theoretical equation losing some of its usefulness. The usefulness that was lost was its natural unity. In its empirical form, it could teach us about the existence of fundamental unity. In its theoretical form, it can no longer do this. The reason is because the choice to make mass an indefinable property forced disunity onto the equation. The equation no longer communicates that which we learn from empirical evidence in its pure state. Instead, it communicates theory to us. It communicates back to us that which we forced it to be.

    James Putnam

    We do not know what cause is. We can know that there is a single cause for all effects. We do know that those effects consist of everything that ever has happened or will happen in the universe. The most important effect that has occurred is human free-will. We can know that the cause, that same original cause for all efects, of human free-will contained the full potential for it right from the beginning of the universe. The answers are provided to us through empirical evidence so long as that evidence is kept free of forced imaginings. We may imagine whatever we wish, but, empirical evidence must be modeled in as pure a form as is possible. It must be understood in the form in which it is initially received. We can only know that which it carries with it in its pure form. We cannot learn more from it, in fact we will learn less from it, by forcing it to conform to our guesses.

    James Putnam

    Patterns of changes of velocity can be measured with respect to distance or with respect to time. The a in f=ma represents changes of velocity with respect to time called acceleration. The evidence appears in f=ma only as combination of units of meters and seconds. We have only meters and seconds to work with for the purpose of defining force and mass. If we arbitrarily add, for whatever reason, other units or anything invented we interfere with the meaning of the patterns of accelerations of objects. If we leave the equation in its empirical form, meaning before we interfere with it, then we find that there are choices available to us about how to proceed to define mass and force using only the empirical evidence. The logical possibilties are to try either property as periods of time, or lengths of distance, or as a velocity, or as an acceleration. Each of these possibilities arise purely from the empirical evidence. One will prove to be the correct choice and reveal itself by its usefulness. It, possibly with modifications due to that which we learn from more patterns of acceleration, will prove to be sufficient, along with length and duration, to derive the rest of mechanics. Nothing will need to be added. This can be known because all other units are derivable from those of mass, assumming that mass is chosen to be the first property to be interpreted, length and duration.

    James Putnam

    James,

    "The fundamental equation modeling patterns in changes of velocity is f=ma. The empirical evidence is represented by a."

    No it isn't. The evidence is the differential measure between mass at relative rest, and mass in relative motion. I'm seeing your problem now -- you think that the variability of the acceleration curve determines states of mass at rest relative to the value of the variation -- that isn't true. States of rest mass are determined relative to states of accelerated mass, not to the acceleration curve, which is not a physically real quantity. As I said before, the *meaning* of f = ma does not change when we truncate the statement to f = m.

    You're confusing the physical concepts of "speed" and "velocity." We can speak of an instantaneous measure of speed, which is always a positive value; velocity, which averages speeds over a given interval, can consist of both positive and negative acceleration. So there's no sense in which one can say that acceleration is a physically real phenomenon -- it is not independent of the instantaneous energy content (the speed) of the body (the mass).

    A universal constant for speed, OTOH, symbolized by c, IS independent of the properties of velocity.

    "The variations of patterns in that evidence tells us that there is a cause and there is a resistance to that cause."

    No, it doesn't. I consider it a travesty of the essay contest that Vesselin Petkov's entry did not get near the attention it deserves -- it is brilliant -- and if one understands what it means that bodies do not resist their motion, one understands the true depth of relativity theory's contribution to physics. Gravity is primary.

    "The cause is called force and the resistance to cause is called mass."

    No. We don't know what causes mass (the standard model favors the Higgs field), and we don't know that mass and inertia are related, though the equivalence principle does identify that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.

    "No one knows what cause is and no one knows what mass is. We only know the roles they play in forming patterns of changes of velocity of objects."

    I hope I have convinced you that the patterns of changes in velocity are not physically real. They are abstract representations of physically real phenomena.

    "Everything that is to be learned about the roles they play must be discerned from patterns in changes of velocity. Everything that is said to be true about either cause or resistance to cause must be communicated by use of terms of empirical evidence only. Anything else added into that communication is imagined."

    What we know about speed, velocity and inertia IS empirical. What you call "imagined" -- i..e, the theoretical explanation -- is how we communicate the evidence, not something we made up in a knowledge vacuum.

    Cheers,

    Tom