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

"Theory is the practice of imagining what cause and resistance to cause may be."

Not true. There is no "theory of cause." E.g., one of physics' most seminal theories -- the kinetic theory of matter -- has nothing to say about what causes motion. And as Petkov profoundly explained, bodies do not resist motion, whatever one imagines the cause to be.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I read your last two messages several times. My opinion: We are going nowhere with this. I maintain that I have not written anything confused. I know the difference between speed and velocity. I know that we receive information about change of velocity only. Acceleration is physically real. We would receive no information without it. Acceleration is the empirical evidence. That is what photons communicate to us. There is nothing to say about changes of mass until several patterns of changes of velocity of objects is observed. Petkov was mistaken. Objects resist acceleration. Gravity is a force that causes acceleration. Objects resist the force of gravity. That resistance is called mass. Gravity is not primary. It is just another effect of force. Force is the name we have given to represent cause. No one knows what cause is. We only can know that there is just one cause for all effects. Theory consists of speculating about the nature of cause. An example: The misrepresentation that "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." is a statement about speculation about the nature of cause. Theory cannot be used to justify theory. Theory cannot be a starting point for analyses. Theory is something added on to physics equations when lack of knowledge or misunderstanding exists yet the theorist feels compelled to move forward anyway. The starting point for learning about mechanics is patterns in changes of velocity of objects. The first two things this empirical evidence demonstrates is that there is force and resistance to force. Knowing that there can be only one cause for all effects tells us that force and resistance to force are different aspects of the same single cause. Learning that variations of force have variations of effects and that resistance to force has variations of effects results from studying many different patterns in changes of velocity of objects. What we learn are patterns of changes in the effects of force and patterns of changes of resistance to force. We do not learn what force is nor do we learn what resistance to force is. We only learn their patterns of variation. Etc.

I recognize that you represent an established professional theoretical viewpoint. The point of my messaages was to introduce the idea that returning to the starting point and re-examining the fundamentals offers an ooportunity to change that viewpoint. It is my view that that viewpoint needs changing. My viewpoint is that removing theoretical inventions from physics equations, beginning with f=ma leads immediately to better answers based firmly on empirical evidence. The method by which this is achieved is to express all properties inferred to exist from observation of empirial evidence only in the same terms as is that empirical evidence itself expressed. Adherence to this practice blocks efforts to theoretically describe the operation of the universe. Etc.

So I guess we have to agree to disagree with you holding the current professionally developed viewpoint. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint with the purpose of trying to help me understand. I do like reading your messages. They are helpful to me.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #212

"I maintain that I have not written anything confused."

I've no doubt that *you* aren't confused, James. If you wish others to be not confused, you have to pay some deference to the usage of common terms, because as much as you speak of "definition," that's what "definition" *means*: common usage of terms.

"My viewpoint is that removing theoretical inventions from physics equations, beginning with f=ma leads immediately to better answers based firmly on empirical evidence."

Since f = ma is based firmly on nothing *but* empirical evidence, you can't see how confusing -- even contradictory -- this statement is to someone else?

"The method by which this is achieved is to express all properties inferred to exist from observation of empirial evidence only in the same terms as is that empirical evidence itself expressed."

Likewise, who -- including you -- expresses the meaning of evidence in any terms other than theory, i.e., natural language and equations? How would anyone discern that there is anything objective in what you are trying to communicate? Or is there, after all? -- is objective communication an impossible ideal? -- if so, how?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Since f = ma is based firmly on nothing *but* empirical evidence, you can't see how confusing -- even contradictory -- this statement is to someone else?"

Yes f=ma is a model of patterns of changes of velocity. But that model has parts that are not based on empirical knowledge. You cannot find information in that empirical evidence that tells you that mass is an indefinable property. My point all along is that it must be definable in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which its existence is inferred. That is straight forward and crystal clear. Either you define mass using its empirical evidence or you give up that direct link to empirical knowledge and make it an unexplained 'given' of the universe.

""The method by which this is achieved is to express all properties inferred to exist from observation of empirial evidence only in the same terms as is that empirical evidence itself expressed.""

This bears repeating over and over again until physicists try it.

"Likewise, who -- including you -- expresses the meaning of evidence in any terms other than theory, i.e., natural language and equations? How would anyone discern that there is anything objective in what you are trying to communicate? Or is there, after all? -- is objective communication an impossible ideal? -- if so, how?"

Defining mass in the terms of its empirical evidence is as objective as one can get. Its current treatment is not objective. Its current status as an indefinable property has burdened theoretical physics with theoretical disunity that begins at the beginning of theory and is pervasive throughout its development. Every use of mass carries its mistaken identity over into other properties. Every use extends theoretical disunity into higher level theory. That disunity cannot be regained until mass is properly defined. The attempts to force unity onto theoretical physics as an afterthought is the reaon why theoretical physics reaches for invented properties that make their appearance only on chalkboards.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #214

"Yes f=ma is a model of patterns of changes of velocity. But that model has parts that are not based on empirical knowledge. You cannot find information in that empirical evidence that tells you that mass is an indefinable property. My point all along is that it must be definable in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which its existence is inferred. That is straight forward and crystal clear."

To whom, James? Certainly not to me. If you can locate anyone who finds this point "straight forward and crystal clear," I am willing to listen to them explain it in terms that I can understand.

Tom

Tom,

Ok, then for others:

The eqation f=ma contains the letter 'a' as representing empirical evidence because it is the effects observed. Nothing else is observed other than patterns of changes of velocity for objects (This applies to the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe as defined by the fundamentals of theoretical physics). The 'm' means nothing to the equation. The name 'mass' means nothing to the equation. Those two are symbols to be read by humans. The property of mass is represented by its units. The units are the identity of mass in the equation f=ma. The units tell us how the theorist interprets the property of mass. If the units are made up, then the identity of the property is made up. The property is still real, but, its identity is artificial. Its identity is a theory. The means by which this dilemma is avoided is to define mass in some combination of the units of its empirical evidence. Those units are meters and seconds. They are the only two naturally indefinable units. They are indefinable because there are no units existing before them by which they may be defined. The empirical evidence tells us about the existence of mass. It tells us this through patterns in changes of velocity. The units of changes of velocity consist of a combination of meters and seconds. The property of acceleration is represented in f=ma only by that combination of meters and seconds. Those meters and seconds are its language. Whatever the patterns of acceleration tell us, it must be communicated in the language of acceleration. The language of acceleration consists of two words for two units 'meters' and 'seconds'. Any other words or units introduced beyond meters and seconds add a new story line that did not exist in the meaning of the empirical evidence. The new added-on meaning is an invention of the theorist. The theorist invents it because they failed to find the meaning in the empirical evidence. The new word invented for mass is kilograms. Its meaning is that mass is not understood in terms of the empirical evidence from which its existence was inferred. That lack of understanding has saddled theoretical phyhsics with invented units causing mass to have an invented identity in f=ma. The property of mass is still a real property. It is a real property with an artificial identity. That artificial identity is solidified into physics equations by the invention of kilograms. All additional theory that makes use of kilograms is infected with this articiality in its equations.

James Putnam

Clausius' Legacy:

Physicists do not know what thermodynamic entropy, as originally discovered and defined by Clausius, is. It is glossed over in texts as if it is a minor stepping stone to other definitions of entropy. There are a few weak attempts to say its a measure of this or that but those attempts fail. They fail because Clausius' defintion is air tight. It is a precise inflexible definition involving the properties of energy-in-transit, called heat, and temperature. The word 'transit' means that time is also a part of the definition. Each property involved in the precise inflexible definition are precisely and inflexibly involved in an ideal physical event. That physical event remains unexplained to this day by theoretical physicsts.

Clausius' legacy, for me, is partly this: There are many problems with theoretical physics that are indications that there are errors in it. There are a few though that have resisted all attempts at 'fixing'. One is the disunity that exists between quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Usually 'fixes' have consisted of adding theoretical properties onto empirical properties. That is the path being followed by theoretical attempts to 'fix' this disunity. Yet in the background there remains a problem that has not been 'fixed'. It is thermodynamic entropy.

It cannot be 'fixed'. The reason it cannot be fixed is that it consists of an inflexible definition involving basic properties. Those properties cannot be touched, meaning changed, without undermining almost every part of theoretical physics. The definition is so simple, clear and its properties are so fundamental that even the practice of adding theoretical properties onto empirical properties will not work. There is no room in the definition for adding anything. Yet its physical meaning is not understood. There is something wrong in the definitions of the properties involved that prevents physicists from making sense of the pieces. The puzzle goes together because all pieces are modeled to fit with the forms of empirical evidence. But something about their identities in equations prevents our understanding of what thermodynamic entropy is.

Their identities in equations are their units. Their units have problems that cannot be theoretically ixed' at such a simple level. In order to understand the physical meaning of thermodynamic entropy theorist must look backwards to the definitions of the units involved. There they will find that mass was improperly declared to be an indefinable property with indefinable units. It should have units that consist of some combination of the units of the empirical evidence. Those units are meters and seconds. Taking this corrective action brings unity to fundamental physics equations and the properties represented in them. One benefit among many is that Clausius' thermodynamic entropy is explained for the physical event that it models.

Clausius' legacy, for me, is this: He discovered a property that reveals fatal errors caused by the theoretical inventions that were forced onto the fundamentals of physics by theorists.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #217

Dear James,

Last summer I mentioned I would offer you a free ebook version of book on innerta and gravitation:

http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/inertia.html

as a thank you for your time and effort to comment on my essay. If you interested, please contact me at vpetkov@minkowskiinstitute.org

All the best fot the holidays,

Vesselin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #218

    Vesselin Petkov,

    12 years ago you had ideas fatal for Einsteiniana:

    Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of a photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along with its frequency (...) As both frequency and velocity change in this experiment the measurement of a change in a photon frequency is in fact an indirect measurement of a change in the photon local velocity. (...) The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the change of its frequency. (...) In such a way the gravitational redshift essentially shows that two photons emitted at points of different gravitational potential have different local velocities at the same observation point..."

    Do you discuss, in your new book, the variation/constancy of frequency, wavelength and velocity of light in a gravitational field?

    Pentcho Valev

    Dear Vesselin,

    Thank you for repeating your offer. I will take advantage of the opportunity to learn from your book 'Inertia and Gravitation'.

    James Putnam

    • [deleted]

    • Post #220

    Dear James,

    I apologize for repeating my offer. The reason is that in the summer I mentioned the book would be published by the end of September, but for a number of reasons it was completed and posted on MIP's site and Amazon hardly yesterday. Simply, I was concerned that you might think I forgot about my offer.

    I am sorry for the typos in my previous post; I was in a hurry.

    All the best,

    Vesselin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #221

    Pentcho Valev,

    On August 9, 2012 I already answered your question concerning that quote (see above):

    "Your quote is from a paper exploring the possibility to interpret spacetime curvature as spacetime anisotropy. Such an interpretation was ruled out since it leads to contradictions with the experimental evidence. The gravitational redshift is discussed in Sect 7.7 of my book Relativity and the Nature of Spacetime, 2ed 2009."

    Of course, it is you who decides what your views on anything should be and whether you are interested in what others think about your views. In case you are interested in what I think, here is a friendly advice - see the whole picture (not just fragments that you seem to misunderstand) and move forward. As seen from the quote you gave, like most people I also checked different ideas, but immediately abandoned them when discovered that they contradicted the experimental evidence; as a result I have much better understanding and know that those ideas have been tested and proven wrong. In case you think some of the things I have written might be helpful to you, my email address is given above and you can contact me. I have nothing more to say.

    Good luck and all the best for the holidays,

    Vesselin Petkov

    The nature of thermodynamic entropy, following up on my message above:

    "Clausius' Legacy:

    Physicists do not know what thermodynamic entropy, as originally discovered and defined by Clausius, is. ..."

    I have my answer to offer: My essay 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' from my website gives my explanations for Clausius' entropy and Boltzmann's entropy. The explanations are new. The essay includes a new treatment of the introductory fundamentals and units of theoretical physics. The entropy part is a little lengthy involving Planck's Constant, Boltzmann's Constant, momentum, temperature and frequency, but, the explanations are simple and clear.

    James Putnam

    • [deleted]

    • Post #223

    Your claim:

    "The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the change of its frequency."

    is correct (you shouldn't have denounced it). It is a tenet of Newton's emission theory of light and is experimentally confirmed:

    Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

    Pentcho Valev

    19 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #224

    Time dilation and length contraction, along with e=mc2, were introduced in 1905. Time dilation and length contraction are the mathematical expressions of the physical effects upon which the derivation of e=mc2 depends. E=mc2 is empirically confirmed to accurately calculate the conservation of mass/energy; therefore, the effects known as time dilation and length contraction cannot be illusions. In special relativity, both time dilation and length contraction result from relative constant velocities. Relative constant velocities do not involve the use of force. Relative velocities in gravitational fields produce special relativity effects. Even if one develops a theory based upon a variable speed of light, length contraction must be included in order to derive a viable alternative form of energy equation to replace e=mc2. My use of the equation e=mc2 represents the total energy term in Einstein's kinetic energy equation.

    James Putnam

      • [deleted]

      • Post #225

      James,

      Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley.

      The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?

      In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications.

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #226

      Eckard,

      "Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley."

      The point that I make is not dependent upon guesses or theories or Michelson Moreley. It is dependent upon the success of e=mc2.

      "The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?"

      It is quite different because it includes relativistic mass and the non-variable velocity c2.

      On 'The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' 1905, section 10 'Dynamics of The Slowly Accelerated Electron'

      "In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications."

      I was being cautious. E=mc2 is falsifiable. Time dilation is also falsifiable. There are three properties involved in making my point. Energy/mass, time dilation, and length contraction. I am saying that the three are inescapably interconnected. All three are theoretically required to be physical. Once mass/energy and time dilation were empirically verified, length contraction became required to be physical.

      James Putnam

      • [deleted]

      • Post #227

      The flaw in the theory of relativity is as follows:

      There are two interrelated fundamental mistakes, Einstein:

      -conflated physical existence and the physically existent representation of that (aka light), ie there is no observational light

      -attributed distance with duration, ie distance was measured in terms of duration taken to travel it, and the entity used was light

      So, the light which Einstein refers to is not observational light but a timing mechanism, which is a constant. The sum effect of these two mistakes is to shift the timing differential from one end of the physical process to the other. That is, there is always a timing delay between the occurrence of physical existence and the receipt of a photon based representation of that. But if these two separate physical circumstances are combined, then this timing differential appears to be a characteristic of physical existence, ie everything has 'its own time' (unless as Einstein incorrectly stated, it is in the "immediate proximity").

      The mistakes are easily identifiable in 1905 section 1 part 1. I wrote this argument out properly and posted it on my essay blog.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #228

      James,

      Thank you for pointing me to ยง10. While I found an equation for the kinetic energy of an electron: W = mc^2{1/sqrt(v^2/c^2) -1}, I cannot yet see its claimed success.

      I agree on that length contraction and time dilation are interrelated. However I thought this was already introduced by Lorentz as an attempt to explain something that worried the experts while it actually was just caused by Michelson's mistake.

      Limited speed of wave propagation and accordingly apparent increase of mass can also be attributed to other waves, in particular to acoustic ones. In this case, one can also ascribe the quanta of energy to fictitious phonons instead of photons.

      Instead of reiterating objections against inconsistencies of SR, I would like to ask which justified corrections to classical physics were tacitly introduced together with it. Galileo and Newton still postulated that bodies are rigid. Shouldn't we consider this model just an approximation?

      Eckard