The Variability of the Speed of Light by James A. Putnam

James Putnam

Tom,

Ok that whole message is theory prejudiced opinion. Your first step is not the first step. I am not going to keep going around of this. Rob did not explain it. You both do not see it. Your theory is getting in your eyes. You are great at theory. But, you are also dependent upon it. The things I stated here are correct. I do not feel a need to go further with this. I expect to put it into an essay for others to read. Thanks anyway.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Sooner or later, James, you will be compelled to admit that all observations are "theory prejudiced opinions."

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Sooner or later, James, you will be compelled to admit that all observations are "theory prejudiced opinions.""

No that is not the case. The photon storm problem is theory free. While the reader may see it from a mechanical viewpoint, the problem puts that view to a test that the view cannot pass. In other cases, such as f=ma and the experimental evidence that supports its use, it is necessary to allow for the mechanical interpretation to be theoretically attached to empirical examples. That necessity follows from theoretical prejudice that fights for its survival as opposed to learning to look beyond it. F=ma is theory laden in its formation and interpretation. Your message showed me that you buy solidly into a deep unyielding reliance upon theory. I have written plenty at this site that shows that approach can be fruitfully rejected. You don't have see things my way. I recognize your talent for theory. But, I see it as an unfortunate loss for clearing away the debri with which theory has smothered empirical evidence.

James Putnam

My position: Every problem in physics that is being solved by means of theory can be solved without the theory. The problems to be solved are empirical problems and the correct manner in which they should be solved is by keeping them firmly empirically based. I have used f=ma to demonstrate that this is the case. F=ma does not have to be theoretical and should not be theoretical. It should be interpreted using only empirical properties. The empirical universe is then understood as what it is, and, not as what theorists imagine it to be. The rest of physics problems would then follow suit. I have solved many of them. Several of those solutions are presented in my essays that are part of these essay contests.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

It is really hard to understand what you're driving at, when your argument so obviously blows up at the second step.

You say, "My position: Every problem in physics that is being solved by means of theory can be solved without the theory."

This makes no sense. Theory doesn't "solve" a problem; the solution is the *correspondence* between theory and result. When you eliminate theory as a necessary vehicle for interpreting empirical results, you eliminate any correspondence between what you think the world is, and what you can objectively say about it. If you claim there is no distinction between what you think and how the world works, you deny objective reality altogether.

Even if you are right, your view is not rational.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

The theory solves the problem for the theorist when it makes successful predictions. The theorist then has reason to believe that they understand the properties involved such as space-time. The predictions do not require the existence of spacetime. The theory can be discarded without loss when solving physics problems. My position makes sense. This appears to be a matter viewpoint. Your description of theory is notone that I accept. For example the belief in the existence of electric charge is theory. The derivation of Maxwell's equations do not require the inclusion of electric charge. I have shown that here.

I have introduced the concept of clearing away theory from physics equations. I have given the example of removing the theory of indefinable mass from f=ma. What I say may not fit with your viewpoint or your preference for definitions, but, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to force theory onto physics equations when it is not only not necessary, it is a harmful practice. Theory introduces disunity.

The means by which we can come as close as is possible to objective knowledge is by developing physics equations that model empirical evidence and not theory. If that is not clear, the equations of space-time model theory. My equation of f=ma with the theoretical units replaced with empirical unts models empirical evidence.

With regard to what is and is not rational, the argument that we learn from what we observe does not explain how we learn from the photon storm. This statement is rational. I have described the problem clearly enough that anyone who understands the problem and is seriously interested in solving the problem will find my statement rational.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

You write, "The theory solves the problem for the theorist when it makes successful predictions."

Again, what other criterion does one use to judge the success of a scientific theory?

"The theorist then has reason to believe that they understand the proper scientific ties involved such as space-time. The predictions do not require the existence of spacetime."

I don't know what predictions you are referring to. However, the successful predictions of relativity theory absolutely do require the existence of spacetime. Try and explain Lorentz contraction (special relativity) or Einstein lensing (general relativity) without it, for example.

"For example the belief in the existence of electric charge is theory. The derivation of Maxwell's equations do not require the inclusion of electric charge. I have shown that here."

Maxwell's equations explain the propagation of the electromagnetic field as a continuous phenomenon. Charge, as a discrete property of the field, is a result and not an assumption. So I guess I agree with you that Maxwell's results do not constitute a theory of the origin of electric charge, which is a quantum question and not therefore directly tied to Maxwell's classical field equations.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"I don't know what predictions you are referring to. However, the successful predictions of relativity theory absolutely do require the existence of spacetime. Try and explain Lorentz contraction (special relativity) or Einstein lensing (general relativity) without it, for example."

I have done that. More than enough has been done in many more areas than just that. You will find a short but very effective introduction to this approach in an essay of mine titled 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy'. Someone interested can just Google 'thermodynamic entropy' and it is there in the top ten. It says a lot.

With regard to numerical perdictions, they are due to the mathematical modeling of the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The patterns consist of changes of velocity. Theory is not successful because of those predictions. The purpose of theory is not to make those predictions. The purpose of theory is to invent substitutes to serve in place of unknown cause. The success of theory is limited to generating an invented concept coupled with the successful numerical prediction allowing the theorist to believe that they have described real properties giving them an understanding about the nature of the universe.

You dismiss my world as unrealistic and unrational while your world of theory is the invented one. Physics equations do not need theory added on to them. Their usefulness is greatest in their empirical forms. F=ma is most useful when it has units that consist only of empirical units. In its empirical form disunity is banished. Theory is the means by which disunity is introduced into physics equations. Theory cannot then be used to establish unity. Only the removal of theory can accomplish that.

With regard to Maxwell's equations, I derived them in my essay 'The Absoluteness of Time' for the first essay contest 'The Nature of Time'. Electric charge does not go into derivation of the equations nor does it appear from reversing the derivations. It is not only not needed but discarding the theory of electric charge is what establishes the absoluteness of time.

The absoluteness of time is established by recognizing that instead of there being electric charge there is a universally constant increment of time. I am saying something very different from what you describe in your message regarding electric charge. This example is typically dismissed out of hand. But, that is why I fill that essay with other results that are all tied together by that universally constant increment of time. What is displayed clearly is fundamental unity.

Tom, I was minding my own business not even posting messages when the new contest was announced. I wrote a simple perhaps humerous message to you concerning its subject and now I find myself entangled in a knock down drag out struggle. I would have to look back to see how this developed. Somehow we have ended up wrestling all over the map. :))

James Putnam

Tom,

I realized that my reference to 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' left the impression that my work regarding the 'Lorentz Transforms' was included in it. That work is not included in that essay. That essay is a broad introduction to my approach giving several results but not those transforms. I don't think that I have presented my derivations of those transform equations here at FQXi.org. That work is done at my website. Redoing relativity theory was the first subject I tackled. It boils down to length of objects does undergo length contraction. The speed of light is a variable. It slows as it approaches an object with mass. There is no time dilation. The rate at which activity occurs does change due to changes in the speed of light. It is the variation of the speed of light that is the cause for all mechanical effects. I am not arguing that case here. Just thought it fair to make these points since I claimed to have done the work of replacing Lorent's transforms. I don't think you will like them either. :))

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

I don't feel that we are locked in struggle here. I respond because I'm interested in these things. If relativity isn't fundamental, and needs to be "redone" as you say, I would be the first to jump on board. After all, I didn't think Bell's theorem needs to be redone until Joy Christian introduced an extradimensional topological framework. I understood it, because I understand analysis. A continuum theory that is consistent with experimental results and obviates nonlocality ("spooky action at a distance"), facilitates a fully relativistic unified theory -- an attractive prospect to me, because it has an unbroken pedigree back to Galileo, of cumulative and hard-won objective knowledge. I find strong agreement with Vesselin Petkov's simple and powerful statement: "Science never moves backward."

Your approach appears to discard every shred of classical physics that we know, of which relativity is the crowning accomplishment. That would make objective knowledge itself an illusion, and I am willing to entertain that possibility. To do so, however, I have to understand what you're saying -- I don't, because of the many unresolved contradictions.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

I am not precise as you are in terminology. If the contradictions you feel you see are in terminology, then from your perspective they could exist. From my perspective I think that I am using the words that which I need to say. I don't see the contradictions. I suppose an example of a difference in meanings that I do see is the word theory. I do see theory as being something quite different from what you describe it. I see it as a detrimental practice for the reasons that I keep repeating. However, what would concern me more than my weaker position concerning terminology is if there were contradictions in the mathematical results I give. Since I am not a physicist, I did the work in a process similar to if I were writing an introductory physics book. That way I could progress only if the unity was maintained right from the beginning of the fundamentals. I feel I went quite far with that approach and the results appear to me to be very strong. The differences are almost total. I think that would be expected since f=ma is treated very differently. I think that removing the arbitrary choice of making mass an indefinable property was a correct step that let theory change in a manner that allowed always present unity to become a reality. From my perspective such unity is scientifically stronger than keeping the several arbitrary choices, and unempircally based guesses, that are still a part of present theoretical physics.

My statement: "Every problem in physics that is being solved by means of theory can be solved without the theory." may not be clear to you because of different understanding of terminology, but, it is just another way of saying that theory should be removed from physics quations and those equations should be returned to the empirical forms. My changes made to f=ma demonstrates this approach. The rest of the work that follows those changes present a great many results that I will keep presenting. Those results are very different but also very strong. I pointed to my essay 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' for two reasons. One is that it present many results. The other is that it explains what Clausius discovered. Theoretical physics skipped over his discovery while pretending to have understood it and explained it. How professionals could continue to tolerate that act is an important part of exposing serious deficiencies in theoretical physics.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

Yes, that's my point -- if it isn't important to be precise, I agree with you. That is, objective knowledge may not exist at all, and anything I think up is unconstrained by bounds of possibility.

And yes, I can even see why you would characterize "theory" as detrimental to internal knowledge, because it is precisely the job of theory to prescribe bounds. In relation to physics, though, theory is identical to mathematics -- so it confuses me when you use equations to try and explain that theory is an unnecessary component for understanding physics. Try doing it without equations.

To say that mass is indefinable in the equation F = ma is self contradictory, since the equation itself defines mass; i.e., it prescribes a limit to itself in proportion to the rate of change of the rate of change (accelerated motion) of mutually dependent quantities. It's what allows Einstein to extend the limit to a rest energy of E = mc^2, and conclude that in principle E = m. That completely defines mass. And in a completely objective manner validated by experimental results.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Yes, that's my point -- if it isn't important to be precise, I agree with you. That is, objective knowledge may not exist at all, and anything I think up is unconstrained by bounds of possibility."

It is important to be precise. I was referring only to terminology respecting the fact that you use physics and mathematical terminology in an exacting manner. That doesn't mean that your terminology is precise or correct in meaning. Where you say below "...the equation itself defines mass...", it shows that you are using that word in a modern but very loose sense. Its maning use to be precise. Check Sears and Zemansky.

"And yes, I can even see why you would characterize "theory" as detrimental to internal knowledge, because it is precisely the job of theory to prescribe bounds."

Theory places artificial bounds on equations. Real bounds do not need theory.

"In relation to physics, though, theory is identical to mathematics -- so it confuses me when you use equations to try and explain that theory is an unnecessary component for understanding physics. Try doing it without equations."

The equation f=ma without the artificial units of kilograms is still an equation. It is a better equation if it is allowed to function with the correct empirical units. Those correct units must be formed from the units of empirical evidence. Kilograms is not a unit of empirical evidence. I use equations. I have the results. I put the results on the Internet and presented many of them here.

"To say that mass is indefinable in the equation F = ma is self contradictory, since the equation itself defines mass; ..."

The equation does not define mass. Tht is why mass must be assigned units that are themselves undefined. Seconds are undefined. Meters are undefined. Newtons are defined. Newtons are defined as (k.m)/(sec^2). That is an example of defining a property.

"...i.e., it prescribes a limit to itself in proportion to the rate of change of the rate of change (accelerated motion) of mutually dependent quantities. ..."

Yes it does.

"It's what allows Einstein to extend the limit to a rest energy of E = mc^2, and conclude that in principle E = m. That completely defines mass. And in a completely objective manner validated by experimental results."

Mass cannot be defined in terms of energy. The reason is because energy is defined in terms that include mass. Kilograms and Joules are not equivalent. Thge experimental results do confirm that the equations E=mc^2 works but they do not confirm that it is internally correct. The success for physics equations is dependent upon how well they model the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The arbitrary assignments of names and units does not necessarily harm the model. the equations E=mc^2 works but needs to be rewritten to reflect the correct interpretation of f=ma specifically mass. I have that corrected form. The corrected form works also.

James putnam

[deleted]

James,

" ... you use physics and mathematical terminology in an exacting manner. That doesn't mean that your terminology is precise or correct in meaning."

It doesn't? Why not? Would it be precise and correct in meaning if I were inexact?

"Where you say below '...the equation itself defines mass...', it shows that you are using that word in a modern but very loose sense. Its maning use to be precise. Check Sears and Zemansky."

What, exactly, in Sears and Zemansky? Why would F = ma mean something different today than when Newton used it? What did it 'used to mean?'"

"Theory places artificial bounds on equations. Real bounds do not need theory."

Mathematics is an artifical language. As I said before, if you want to remove theory from physics, don't use equations because you are contradicting yourself.

" ... f=ma ... is a better equation if it is allowed to function with the correct empirical units. Those correct units must be formed from the units of empirical evidence. Kilograms is not a unit of empirical evidence."

What is it, chopped liver? Or are you trying to say that gravitational mass is not equivalent to inertial mass? Prove it.

"Seconds are undefined."

An interval comprising a certain number of beats or oscillations is defined.

"Meters are undefined."

An interval comprising a certain number of length units is defined.

Definitions are always taken in reference to other definitions.

"Newtons are defined. Newtons are defined as (k.m)/(sec^2). That is an example of defining a property."

Really? How do you make that claim while also claiming that seconds and meters are undefined?

"Mass cannot be defined in terms of energy."

It doesn't have to be. The atomic bomb informs us of the awesome truth of the matter. If you have to be "empirical," it's the ultimate test.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

An idefinable unit is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. An indefinable property is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties.

James Putnam

Sears-Zemansky, College Physics, 1960, Addison-Wesley, page-1 Chapter-1:

"A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.

"In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition."

Me: It is possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only two indefinables. The third is not needed and mass should not have been arbitarily made into an indefinable property. Returning mass to a property definable in terms of empirical properties corrects the damage done to the remaining quantities of mechanics. All quantities of mechanics are expressible in combinations of units of meters and seconds. Meters and seconds are the only two indefinable units needed for expressing the quantities of mechanics.

James Putnam

[deleted]

"An idefinable unit is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. An indefinable property is one that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing properties."

What unit prexists the definition of a unit? How would one objectively know?

What property preexists the definition of a property? How would one objectively know?

You see, James, if objective knowledge is not at issue -- I can follow your argument. However, rational science does not admit superfluous assumptions.

Tom

[deleted]

(From Sears/Zemansky): "Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics."

But not of *mathematics.* That is precisely why the language of mechanics has to be formalized in order to produce any discrete results whatsoever. Mach's mechanics -- entirely relativistic -- suffers from just this lack of boundary conditions. Incidentally, the continuous shape dynamics of Julian Barbour & collaborators is an attempt to overcome that challenge.

"It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be 'mass' or 'force' with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics."

Why not choose force? Because then one could not define rest mass for any nonzero energy. James, the bottom line is that physics is all about measuring changes in energy. Whatever form those changes take, length and time and mass are necessary instruments of measure. That's what the authors mean when they say, "The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition."

You write, "Meters and seconds are the only two indefinable units needed for expressing the quantities of mechanics."

Right. All physics needs to get started are space and time. That's it.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"... the bottom line is that physics is all about measuring changes in energy. Whatever form those changes take, length and time and mass are necessary instruments of measure. That's what the authors mean when they say, "The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition."

Physics is not about measuring changes in energy. The only measurements that physicsts can make are changes of distance with respect to changes of time.

Length and time are necessary instruments of measure, mass is not. Length and time are the necessary instruments of measure of mass. Mass does not need a rule for measuring. Kilograms do not need to be defined as an object.

I know what the authors meant. I have not misunderstood them. I am saying that theoretical physics made an error by introducing mass as an indefinable property. A third indefinable property is not needed. I gave the quote to make clear the meaning of the word definable. Kilograms is not definable. Kilograms is part of the physics equation f=ma. It should not be a part of the physics equation f=ma. The physics equation f=ma models empirical measurements of length and time only.

James Putnam

[deleted]

"Physics is not about measuring changes in energy. The only measurements that physicsts can make are changes of distance with respect to changes of time."

Distances between what and what? You will find that the only real measurements are between mass points. And yes, these changes require energy potential.

"Length and time are necessary instruments of measure, mass is not."

Try describing any measure without reference to mass points.

"Length and time are the necessary instruments of measure of mass. Mass does not need a rule for measuring. Kilograms do not need to be defined as an object."

And you don't see how you are contradicting yourself here?

"Kilograms is not definable. Kilograms is part of the physics equation f=ma. It should not be a part of the physics equation f=ma."

You could call it fluffernutter, and it would still equal the same quantity of mass when tested under identical conditions. That's what makes it "physically real," i.e., having an effect but not affected by physical conditions.

"The physics equation f=ma models empirical measurements of length and time only."

Only lengths and times between mass points.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Me: "Length and time are the necessary instruments of measure of mass. Mass does not need a rule for measuring. Kilograms do not need to be defined as an object."

You: "And you don't see how you are contradicting yourself here?"

Me: "Quoting Sears/Zemansky: "A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary to know how to measure mass and velocity."

When mass is corrected to a definable property then: The rule for calculating mass is contained within the definition. All that is necessary to know how to length and time."

Me: "Kilograms is not definable. Kilograms is part of the physics equation f=ma. It should not be a part of the physics equation f=ma."

You: "You could call it fluffernutter, and it would still equal the same quantity of mass when tested under identical conditions. That's what makes it "physically real," i.e., having an effect but not affected by physical conditions."

Me: The point has to do with units. The units of mass should not be the indefinable unit of kilograms. The units of mass should consist of a combination of the units of its empirical evidence. Those units are meters and seconds. So long as indefinable kilograms is permitted to remain a part of f=ma the equation will contain an artificial interpretation of mass.

Me: "The physics equation f=ma models empirical measurements of length and time only.""

You: "Only lengths and times between mass points."

Me: Lengths and times between points.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

"Quoting Sears/Zemansky: "A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of 'mass' and 'velocity,' the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary (is?) to know how to measure mass and velocity."

True statement.

James: "When mass is corrected to a definable property then: The rule for calculating mass is contained within the definition. All that is necessary to know (is?) how to (measure?) length and time."

Untrue statement, which does not follow from the true statement. You have made the tacit assumption that length and time are independent of the mass points. They are not. I tried to get across what 'physically real' means, by referring to Einstein's compact definition, " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect, but not itself affected by physical conditions." Mass-energy is physically real; length and time are not. By trying to make length and time physically real independent of each other and independent of mass, you are saying that they exert physical influence on mass.

Wheeler's nice didactic for general relativity -- "mass tells space how to bend, space tells mass how to move" -- informs us in a simple and general way, how dynamic spacetime balances the energy books between masses separated by various lengths and times; i.e., because neither spaces nor times are, independently, physically real -- only spacetime preserves dynamic motion which is measured as mass-energy potential.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

You have made the tacit assumption that length and time are independent of the mass points. They are not. I tried to get across what 'physically real' means, by referring to Einstein's compact definition, " ... independent in its properties, having a physical effect, but not itself affected by physical conditions." Mass-energy is physically real; length and time are not. By trying to make length and time physically real independent of each other and independent of mass, you are saying that they exert physical influence on mass."

I made no assumptions. I referred to what is measured as empirical evidence. Length and time are measured. That is it. This exercise has to do with not making assumptions. It has to do with removing assumptions. It has to do with learning that which empirical evidence tells. If length varies the evidence will tell us. If we keep assumptions out of our equations we will know why length varies. I do not say that length and time exert physical influence on mass. I say that mass is demonstrated to exist by our measurements of length and time. Force is demonstrated to exist by our measurements of length and time. Mass is properly seen as a property of resistance to force. Energy is a calculation made after the measurement process is finished that involves the product of force and length. Kinetic energy is that calculation. Potential energy is the predicted magnitude of kinetic energy that would result if a force is permitted to act on an object over a distance.

There are no measurements of either space or time. The time referred to above is an adequately repeatable cycle of motion. Motion does vary. Cycles of motion also vary. That is what we learn. We cannot attribute changes to those things which are not measured to change. Space is not measured. Length is measured. Length has to do with the extent of objects. Time is not measured. The cyclic motion of objects is measured. We do not affect space or time. The theory of space-time results from a theoretical error. The error is the assumption that the speed of light is to be inserted into physics equations as a constant. The speed of light is not a constant. It measures locally as a constant. Measuring as a constant and being a constant are not the same thing. The measurement process consists of length as determined by the extent of objects. The extent of objects varies. Etc.

Wheeler was advocating a theory. The theory is wrong. The theory, as theory inherently is, is invention. The equations of physics do not need theory. They are distorted negatively by the addition of theory onto them. They, the equations of physics, are born from real empirical measurements of length and cyclic passages in time. There are four properties learned from those measurements. They are the measured properties of length and time plus the inferred properties of force and resistance to force. Both force and resistance to force are learned from measurements of length and time. They have to be expressible in the same terms as that their empirical evidence is expressed. That practice prevents the introduction of theoretical assumptions leading to theoretical errors becoming permanent parts of physics equations. The first step in preventing the introduction of theoretical errors is to define mass in terms of length and time with units of meters and seconds. More learning does follow, but that learning will not be theoretical. The cleaned up equations prevent that. Etc.

I have performed more than enough work gaining more than enough results to demonstrate a case for removing theory from physics equations. Many of those results have been presented here. Theory cannot effectively be used to discredit equations that have been kept in their empirical form. The empirical form is the real form. It has to be. It contains no assumptions and no inventions and, therefore, no distortions. When the equations of physics are restored to their empirical forms they tells us everything that empirical evidence is communicating to us. The tell us more than the equations that have been made into theory dependent equations. Theory dependent equations limit our learning to the theory or theories that the equations have forced to represent. The equations I work with are not forced to represent anything other than empirical evidence. The source of empirical evidence is measurements of patterns of changes of velocity of objects. The points these measurements occur between are points that the experimenter establishes by the placement of objects.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James

The error in space-time is the presumption that physical existence involves alteration, which it does not. Alteration is the difference between physical existences, not of any given one.

The error you refer to is not that the speed of light is deemed a constant, but that it is included at all. This results from a failure to distinguish physical existence from a physically existent light based representation thereof . The speed of light is a determinant in light reality, not reality. So e does not = mc2, etc, etc. And a proper reading of Einstein shows this, because although he thought he was dealing with observational light, he was not. Nobody observes anything with Einstein, because there is nothing to enable observation. All he has is a constant, which he calls light.

Another way of expressing your core point is that distance and duration are not physically existent. They are differences which we derive by comparison, and differences do not physically exist, what enabled us to derive them does.

Paul

[deleted]

"Length and time are measured. That is it."

No James. Length and time are measurement results. Not physically real. I can use any pair of numbers arbitrarily to describe a length or time interval. Because spacetime *is* physically real, however, the relations between mass points and changes in those relations produce a true measure of change in energy potential, field densities, momentum.

I'm afraid that until you understand that relativity theory is the capstone of classical physics, completely incorporating previously known physics, you're going to be spinning your wheels and sliding backward downhill.

Tom

[deleted]

James,

This recent paper explains in great detail what I have been trying to tell you about the progress of classical physics.

The first paragraph of the author's (Eugene Hecht) conclusions reads:

"Einstein produced about 18 virtuoso derivations and demonstrations all aimed at establishing the mass-energy principle. We have shown that although each of them gave evidence for the applicability of E_0 = mc^2 to a particular set of circumstances, no one derivation, or collection of them taken together, succeeded in providing a definitive proof of its complete generality. That should not be surprising because the same situation occurs, for example, with F = ma, which is a different kind of relation than E_0 = mc^2. Even so, 300 years of successful theoretical work have not proven the correctness of F = ma. Indeed, relativity showed that this expression, one of the bedrocks of classical mechanics, holds only approximately."

I'm bringing this up to try and get across to you that if you want to attack the foundations of physics, you're going to have to start with Einstein, not Newton. You're going to have to start with rest mass, not accelerated mass.

As Hecht continues in his conclusions, "For several compelling reasons, many physicists have come to accept that mass is invariant, even though there is no proof - theoretical or experimental - that it is. If mass is speed-independent, then E_0 = mc^2 and only the internal energy, the rest-energy, of an object determines its mass. However, if mass is relativistic, then E = m_Rc^2 and the kinetic energy of a system moving as a whole also contributes to its mass. A proof of either E_0 = mc^2 or E = m_Rc^2 is therefore inextricably linked to a determination of the fundamental nature of mass and is beyond the purview of the special theory."

Read again, " ... beyond the purview of the special theory." Physicists as a whole are unlikely to even care about mathematical proofs. I'm no physicist. If you think that *the fundamental nature of mass* is not relativistic -- prove it. I applaud your effort. You can't prove anything, however, by ignoring Einstein's highly successful extension of classical mechanics to relativistic physics.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Length and time are measurement results. Not physically real. I can use any pair of numbers arbitrarily to describe a length or time interval. Because spacetime *is* physically real, however, the relations between mass points and changes in those relations produce a true measure of change in energy potential, field densities, momentum."

Empirical evidence consists of measuring patterns in changes of velocity of objects. There are only two measurements involved. One is length and the other is time. They are our information. We have no information about movement of space or time as objects. When an object changes its velocity that change is due to force. Force is the cause of change of velocity. Momentum and energy are two ways of accounting for the effect of force for the same event. Momentum is the force times the time of the event. Energy is force times the distance traveled during the event. The three fundamental properties involved in these two methods of accounting are force, length, and time. There is not even one thimble full of a substance that is energy available for observation and testing.

James Putnam

Tom,

"If you think that *the fundamental nature of mass* is not relativistic -- prove it. I applaud your effort. You can't prove anything, however, by ignoring Einstein's highly successful extension of classical mechanics to relativistic physics."

Mass varies. The patterns in changes of velocity of an object show us this. I have no argument against empirical evidence. F=ma has a variable mass. It is not Newton's equation as he understood it. It is Newon's equation modified by additional empirical knowledge. Resistance to force by an object varies. It varies because the speed of light varies. Einstein's equations work. They work because professional theory is designed to fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The theory is not what makes the equations successful at making further empirical predictions. It is the patterns of changes of velocity modeled by the equations that makes successful extrapolations and interpolations possible. The theory can change and the equations can still be successful. The equations can even become more useful. The Lorentz transforms can and do remain even with space-time long gone.

James Putnam

[deleted]

"Empirical evidence consists of measuring patterns in changes of velocity of objects."

Which is equivalent to changes in states of energy.

"There are only two measurements involved. One is length and the other is time. They are our information."

No. State change is physical information. Length and time are the vectors and scalars by which we measure state change.

"We have no information about movement of space or time as objects."

We certainly do. Objects are *made of* space and time. It's the origin of mass of which we are not yet certain.

Tom

[deleted]

"Mass varies. The patterns in changes of velocity of an object show us this."

???

"I have no argument against empirical evidence."

Apparently you do.

"F=ma has a variable mass."

No it doesn't! It is the force F that varies in inverse proportion to the acceleration of a mass initially at rest. It's a very simple equation.

"It is not Newton's equation as he understood it. It is Newon's equation modified by additional empirical knowledge. Resistance to force by an object varies."

No it doesn't! Inertial energy varies only in proportion to its mass (rest energy).

"It varies because the speed of light varies."

Even *if* your assumption were true, *we could not measure the difference* between an assumed variable speed of light and what we measure as changes in relations among mass points in spacetime. Do you understand that your assumptions are superfluous to the physics?

Tom

[deleted]

James,

Thinking about your contention that "mass varies" reminded me that I constructed a mathematical picture of what a continuum of mass would look like, in my 2008 preprint "On Breaking the Time Barrier."

I have done more sophisticated (yet unpublished) work from this basis since. The gist is, though, that such a continuum demands negative mass in the n-dimension Hilbert space, and some criteria for nonlocal measure to make it viable. I wrote it before being exposed to Joy Christian's framework, by which I became convinced that the topological 8-dimension limit (7-sphere) is more physically realistic than the Hilbert space. I haven't taken it down from my site, however, because I think that it shows why a physical limit -- and not nonlocality in the n-dimension Hilbert space -- makes the generalization of Euclidean space up to S^7 (limit of the division algebras) a better bet for a real and complete description of reality.

I have extracted and attached the relevant pages from the paper.

TomAttachment #1: Pages_from_timebarrier80108.pdf

James Putnam

Tom,

" "Mass varies. The patterns in changes of velocity of an object show us this."

???"

Everything we learn about an objects properties are is from the patterns in changes of velocity of an object.

""I have no argument against empirical evidence."

Apparently you do."

Everything I say is rooted in empirical evidence. I am not misled by theory.

" "F=ma has a variable mass."

No it doesn't! It is the force F that varies in inverse proportion to the acceleration of a mass initially at rest. It's a very simple equation."

The force varies because the mass varies. A constant force will not maintain a constant acceleration because the mass is varying.

" "It is not Newton's equation as he understood it. It is Newon's equation modified by additional empirical knowledge. Resistance to force by an object varies."

No it doesn't! Inertial energy varies only in proportion to its mass (rest energy)."

Energy is an accounting practice. It is the calculation of a force applied acrossed a distance for an object with mass. Mass varies and mass is resistance to force. Mass varies because the speed of light varies. The corrected treatment of f=ma, making mass a definable property with definable units, makes this clear.

" It varies because the speed of light varies."

We cannot measure a change in the speed of light. The speed of light always measures as the same constant C locally. Locally means that the measuring rod undergoes the effects of the changing speed of light that is to be measured. The measurement fails because the rod lenth varies due to the variation of the speed of light. The rod suffers length contraction.

Again, it is necessary to stress that I do not make assumption. I remove assumptions. Theory contains assumptions. I remove theory. My example of reinterpreting f=ma, making mass the definable property that it always should have been which eliminates the invented theoretical mass, is the application of this approach leading to very good results. The main common result is that unity is gained immediately and maintained throughout the derivations of physics equations applying to all facets including the Lorentz transforms. The resulting equations are available for inspection.

James Putnam

Tom,

" "Empirical evidence consists of measuring patterns in changes of velocity of objects."

Which is equivalent to changes in states of energy."

Energy is a calculation. It is an accounting procedure. There are changes in position with regard to the strength of a force and the distance over which it could be or is applied.

" "There are only two measurements involved. One is length and the other is time. They are our information."

No. State change is physical information. Length and time are the vectors and scalars by which we measure state change."

Length and time are the two values of physical information from which you must proceed for the derivation of any other properties theoretical or real.

" "We have no information about movement of space or time as objects."

We certainly do. Objects are *made of* space and time. It's the origin of mass of which we are not yet certain."

Gotta make sure there is no escape window, We have no empirical information about the movement of space or time s objects. We only have empirical information about how objects with mass vary their velocities.

James Putnam

Tom,

This is a good opportunity to pay respects to your amazing skills in both theoretical physics and mathematics. If correcting physics theory required those skills I would be lost. Fortunately, the correction of physics equations calls for the removal of the invented properties that require those skills. Still, if I was as prepared as are you, I could have done what needs to be done much quicker. One the other hand, thinking about the resistance you have experienced by those whom I think you are ahead of, perhaps real progress requires plodding along repetitively.

"Thinking about your contention that "mass varies" reminded me that I constructed a mathematical picture of what a continuum of mass would look like, in my 2008 preprint "On Breaking the Time Barrier.""

The arbitrary acts of injecting theory onto physics equations introduced disunity in a way that cannot be fixed except by removing those theoretical intrusions onto physics equations. However, in lieu of taking that action, the effort to give the impression of having theoretically achieved unification exhibits itself in the invetion of more and more unempirically supportble properties and visualizations of what the universe might consist of. This practice should be discarded as evidence of earlier theoretical errors. A return to the basics is called for. My own finding is that those errors that remain in need of correction begin with the arbitrary choice to make mass an indefinable property. That act makes it impossible for theorists to explain what mass is.

The theorist has already established that mass is something that is not made known by the empirical evidence from which its existence is inferred. This is a clear introduction of disunity for only one reason: lack of understanding of that which empirical evidence is telling us. That lack of understanding is not necessary and can be corrected immediately. Its correction, along with removing some other theoretical inventions, returns physics to the condition where unempirically supportable properties are no longer needed to be invented and forced onto physics equations.

James Putnam

[deleted]

Tom

"relativity theory is the capstone of classical physics, completely incorporating previously known physics"

And that is precisely the problem, because this concept is wrong. Physical existence does not occur relatively, it occurs. Receipts of a physically existent representation of it (aka light) occur 'relatively', ie the time of receipt is dependent on relative spatial position of the recipient.

And the problem is further exacerbated by "spacetime *is* physically real", because this is not correct either. Physical existence only occurs as a spatial phenomenon. It alters, ie to another physical existence, at a rate.

Surely, these concepts of mass, energy, force, are just different aspects of the same fundamental 'commodity'? And any use of c in trying to explain them is incorrect. Just what has the speed of something which enables us to 'see' got to do with the existential qualities of what we are being enabled, via a representation (ie light), to be aware of? Other than in the first instance, as with other physical properties of light, discounting it and thereby extrapolating what actually occurred from the representation. Which then needs explaining.

Paul

Thomas Ray

James,

You wrote, "Empirical evidence consists of measuring patterns in changes of velocity of objects."

To which I replied, "Which is equivalent to changes in states of energy."

And you responded, "Energy is a calculation. It is an accounting procedure. There are changes in position with regard to the strength of a force and the distance over which it could be or is applied."

To which I reply: "Which is equivalent to changes in states of energy."

You write: "Length and time are the two values of physical information from which you must proceed for the derivation of any other properties theoretical or real."

James, I utterly fail to understand why you don't see that "length and time" is the same thing as "space and time."

You say, "We have no empirical information about the movement of space or time as objects. We only have empirical information about how objects with mass vary their velocities."

It is necessary to understand how Minkowski space-time, in Einstein's relativity, allows *no independent physical reality* to either space or time. Only spacetime is physically real, and we have *abundant* empirical results supporting it. Your view stops at Newton, where mass is assumed. We've come a long way in our understanding since then, even though we have not quite fixed the origin of mass.

Tom

Thomas Ray

James,

Thanks for the high praise. I think the stark contrast in our views makes for some pretty focused dialogue at times. However, I will never be able to get my mind around your philosophy that " ... the correction of physics equations calls for the removal of the invented properties ... " because physics equations -- mathematics in general -- is an artificial, hence "invented" language. It's as if you believe that the equations have some independent reality that requires interpretation by some other unspecified language. This only leads to an infinite regress of interpreting the intepretation. (This is the main premise of the postmodern worldview, BTW.)

And while that regress may actually be true -- my opinion is reserved -- it doesn't advance our understanding of the physical world. Conventional science, as practiced for the past 300 or so years, has progressed by identifying phenomena within domain boundaries and then breaching the boundaries incrementally. This would not be possible -- progress would not be possible -- unless we were able to make those closed logical judgments that the mathematics of limit and function allow.

Data don't interpret themselves, and the phenomena which generate the data also is hidden behind that, using your word, "fog." I agree with Bronowski's profound statement, "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

It is not true that " ... unempirically supportable properties are no longer needed to be invented and forced onto physics equations ... " because this was never the case. Equations describing physical properties either predict empirical results (such as in mathematically complete theories of relativity), or are derived from empirical results (such as in quantum mechanical explanations of the 2-slit experiment).

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Focusing: What are the empirical results to support this statement?

"It is necessary to understand how Minkowski space-time, in Einstein's relativity, allows *no independent physical reality* to either space or time. Only spacetime is physically real, and we have *abundant* empirical results supporting it."

I don't think that this statement below is correct:

"Your view stops at Newton, where mass is assumed. We've come a long way in our understanding since then, even though we have not quite fixed the origin of mass."

My view does not stop at Newton. The first step I take concerning f=ma is to interpret it in a manner that Newton did not. By not inventing an artificial treatment for mass, I learn what mass is right there at the beginning using f=ma. Learning what mass is leads to knowing that objects lengths will contract and the speeds at which object activity occurs will vary due to relative motion. The corrected units for f=ma lead to analogous equations replacing Einstein's, even e=mc^2. More than that it leads to new derivations and understanding of electromagnetism, thermodynamic entropy, the fine structure constant, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant, etc. Most of all there is unity. The existence of continual unity eliminates the need for reaching out to other dimensions in a search for some way to give the impression that theory that was made inherently disunified can be convoluted into a state where unity is achieved in a strange unempirically supported universe.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Focusing: What are the empirical results to support this statement?

'It is necessary to understand how Minkowski space-time, in Einstein's relativity, allows *no independent physical reality* to either space or time. Only spacetime is physically real, and we have *abundant* empirical results supporting it.'"

We already covered that, James. Einstein lensing, Lorentz contraction.

"I don't think that this statement below is correct:

'Your view stops at Newton, where mass is assumed. We've come a long way in our understanding since then, even though we have not quite fixed the origin of mass.'

My view does not stop at Newton. The first step I take concerning f=ma is to interpret it in a manner that Newton did not."

Can you summarize that result in language I can comprehend?

"By not inventing an artificial treatment for mass, I learn what mass is right there at the beginning using f=ma."

I showed you in specific terms why such an assumption leads to negative mass, and n-dimension Hilbert space. You have to show me in specific terms how your continuum of mass works "from the beginning." As a result, not a mere assumption.

"Learning what mass is leads to knowing that objects lengths will contract and the speeds at which object activity occurs will vary due to relative motion. The corrected units for f=ma lead to analogous equations replacing Einstein's, even e=mc^2."

Since E = m is an *empirical* result, your equations either can't refer to anything physical, or you need to show why E = m is just an illusion and not physically true.

"More than that it leads to new derivations and understanding of electromagnetism, thermodynamic entropy, the fine structure constant, Planck's constant, Boltzmann's constant, etc."

Sure -- if I assume a mass continuum "from the beginning." I see no physical reason to make such an assumption. Hypotheses non fingo.

"Most of all there is unity. The existence of continual unity eliminates the need for reaching out to other dimensions in a search for some way to give the impression that theory that was made inherently disunified can be convoluted into a state where unity is achieved in a strange unempirically supported universe."

What you fail to see is that those "convoluted" theories were born of a need to explain the *empirical* evidence that you claim to hold in such esteem.

Tom

« Previous Page Next Page »