• [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

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano,

Quoting you: "The empirical principle. A principle is empirical if it has no logical motivation other than its empirical evidence." This principle is one that I consider to be crucial to theoretical physics. I think the application of this principle must be more forcefully emphasized. You may not view it in the same manner in which I present it below.

I am posting this message in my forum rather than to intrude into yours with an idea of which you might disapprove while I feel strongly about it. I think that the Empirical Principle as I view it must be applied right from the start of theory. In my essay I apply this principle to mass. My opinion is that either force or mass must be interpreted by this principle.

I chose mass because it has been the custom to define force in terms of mass and acceleration, whereas, mass is not a defined property nor are its units defined units. The meaning of 'defined' as used here is: All units must be defined in terms of pre-existing units. All properties must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties.

I express this principle in different words than yours and also apply it differently than do you in your essay. I state the principle as: All properties must be expressible in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence is inferred. The evidence for the existence of force and resistance to force (mass) are patterns in changes of velocity with respect to time (acceleration).

The units of acceleration are a combination of meters and seconds. Velocity, change of velocity, meters and seconds are examples of properties and units that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. That is because, they are the properties and units from which empirical evidence is formed. There are no properties pre-existing those of empirical evidence.

My point is that the application of the Empirical Principle in the manner in which I use it calls for the units of mass to consist only of a combination of meters and seconds. The same will then be true for force. All further properties also inferred to exist from force, mass, and/or acceleration must also have units defined such that they consist only of combinations of meters and seconds.

The result is that all additonal properties including electric charge, etc. must have units which are defined as combinations of meters and seconds. This pursuit is of what my work has consisted. I accept only the units of length and time as naturally indefinable units. All other units, beginning with kilograms must be defined using the units of length and time only. I eliminate the empirically unjustified introduction of artificial indefinable units beginning with the artificially indefinable unit of kilogram.

James Putnam

a month later

Tom,

"Time is not a physically real object. Spacetime is.

If you think Einstein was wrong, you have an immensely hard row to hoe, in face of the evidence."

No I don't. I have already produced the replacement equations. E=mc^2 has been replaced. I presented this work in my Essay titled 'Our Analog Universe'. Spacetime is gone. Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone. There is a universal fundamentally constant measure of time. It was presented in my first essay 'The Absoluteness of Time'. In it I also put forward many examples of correcting physics equations including Maxwell's. All of this and much more is available at my website. There is an essay on 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' that shows many of the new results that are achieved by removing theory from the equations of physics. Clausius discovery is explained. It has never been explained before. Etc.

James Putnam

    • [deleted]

    • Post #189

    "Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone."

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

    Tom

    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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #200

      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