Tom,
Continuing on a new thread:
You: "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.""
Me: As you might say "So what." It matters not that the product of force times distance is given the name energy unless there is empirical evidence for the existence of a substantive form for energy. What is your evidence for the existence of substantive energy?
You: "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.""
I don't fail to see that. I must assume you mean that you don't understand why I don't believe in it. There is no empirical evidence linking space and time. Length and time, as in the Lorentz tranforms are not space or time. The 't in physics equations is not time. It is called time, but it is not time. It is a representation of our futile attempts to measure the passage of time exactly. The 't' is clearly only a representation of counts of cycles of some clock's failing effort to give us a count of constant divisions of the passage of time.
Me: "Focusing: What are the empirical results to support this statement?
You: "'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.'"
You: "We already covered that, James. Einstein lensing, Lorentz contraction."
Me: Lorentz contraction applies to objects. Neither space nor time are objects. But, here in 'Einstein lensing' the error of theoretical leaps s commited. When light bends around matter it gives empirical evidence that light and matter interact. That is all it does. It does not tell us that space and time are distorted by matter. Einstein tells us that. Einstein has a theory about the cause of light bending around matter. The empirical evidence is not about or controlled by his theory. The empirical evidence is about the effects of the interactions of light and matter. The explanation for the interaction, if done correctly, will involve only empirically verifiable properties. Einstein's theory involves properties that are not empirically verifiable.
This difference in view is critically important. You believe in theory: ", allows *no independent physical reality* to either space or time." Minkowski's space-time, in Einstein's relativity cannot allow or disallow anything real. Reality is communicated to us through empirical evidence. The empirical eidence doesn't require "Minkowski space-time, in Einstein's relativity" to be true. I explain light bending around matter differently. My explanation involves only those properties that empirical evidence consists of. Theory isn't needed.
You: "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."
You: "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."
It only matters to those who believe that that theory is reality. That theory cannot allow or disallow anything. It can only: Duplicate patterns in changes of velocity; propose guesses about the nature of cause; force those guesses onto its equations; perpetuate itself by claiming that its guesses about the nature of cause are proven correct because its equations give successful prediction of empirical evidence. Its guesses are not proven to be correct by empirical evidence.
You: "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."
Me: This shows that you still have not begun to understand my view. My view is not Newton's view. Mass was assumed to be an indefinable property and relativity theory agrees with that. I do not. I reverted mass back to a definable property. That is what it should always have been. You don't yet give any indication that you understand the importance of the difference between mass being indefinable and definable. The reason you do not know the origin of mass is due to your error of accepting mass as an indefinable property. That error, in the form of the units of kilograms, was carried upward through the development of theory infecting theory with error all along the way. You accepted disunity right from the start. Your un-unified theory is your problem. Your problem is that your explanations about cause must involve properties that are empirically unverifiable. In the case of space-time: you do not have empirical evidence that space or time physically bend or distort. You only have evidence that objects undergo changes of velocity and that those objects interact with each other.
James Putnam
