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

James Putnam

Tom,

You: "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.)"

Me: I am not sure about having said that 'invented language' part. It doesn't look familiar. Here is what I do say:

Mathematics is the practice of cataloguing shortcuts for counting. That which is to be counted is not mathematics. If the things that are counted are real, then mathematics is a tool used to serve the purpoe of counting real things. If the things that are counted are not real, then even though mathematics remains real, its use in this case lacks scientific value. Rather it is confined to serving a belief system.

You: "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."

Me: Progress is the accumulation of useful real results made possible by the processing of real information. Space-time is not progress and does not contribute to it. It is an invention that limits the usefulness of physics equations. Physics equations must contain only information about real properties as made known to us by empirical evidence, if they are to have maximum usefulness in serving progress. You insist in one of these messages that I explain my concern about e=mc^2 or the even more muddled form e=m. I have explained my view on this. You don't accept it. I have shown why and how to correct it. You didn't read it. It was in the first part of my essay 'Our Analogue Universe'.

You: "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."

Me: Yes I understand the attractiveness of 'hidden' likenesses for theorists. They invent and they believe in their inventions. You are correct that data does not interpret itself. Intelligence interprets data. There is the biggest challenge faced by the mechanical interpretation of the universe. It can't account for intelligence and even by assuming the eistence of intelligence, it can't account for how intelligence interprets data. That profound occurence is not due to theory. The evidence that the mechanical view cannot understand the nature of intelligence is its inability to discuss intelligence without assming intelligence.

You: "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)."

Yes equations predict empirical results. Competently formed equations are designed to mimic patterns in empirical results thereby inherently having the ability to extrapolate or interpolate further empirical results. Yes equations are derived from empirical results. That is how f=ma became formed. The corruptive effects of theoretical intervention begins when unempirically supported guesses are made about the terms in equations; and, to the great detreiment of progress, are solidified into the equations by their units.

That kind of theoretical distortion occurred when it was guessed that mass should be declared, without empirical support, to be an indefinable property. It is essential that you understand the significance of a property being either defined or undefined. I understand that that difference is not longer stressed in physics texts. The words primary properties and secondary properties are now used to obfuscate the physicists' lack of correctly identifying which properties are definable and which are not. We have paid a high price for this incorrectness. The evidence of that incorrectness is the existence of theory.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James,

I am going to have to leave off now and get on to other things. It has been interesting and thought provoking, though I profoundly disagree with your premises.

Rather than rehash replies to things we've already covered, and much of which is becoming tediously repetitive, I want to say only:

F = ma and E = mc^2 are phenomenological. That is, even though these equations began as theoretical statements, there is no case in physical observation or experiment that contradicts them. The origin of mass is not at issue here -- we've got quantum field theory to tackle that question.

Further, though, the path from F = ma to E = mc^2 is solidly connected, and shows us that there is a limit to mass acceleration that preserves identity between rest mass and rest energy. They are interchangeable. I know that you object to getting mass "for free" from space and time alone; however, that appears to be the case in nature. I tried to pry from you a direct derivation for your belief that mass preexists space and time, because I thought that you would see, through making that effort, that your contention over the "fundamental units of length and seconds" is exactly the same thing as space and time. And from that, be able to see that in order for unity in nature to be served, that space and time are not independently real -- just as Minkowski had it -- and only the unity of spacetime guarantees unity of physical phenomena.

From my point of view, you seem to be fighting aganst yourself.

All best,

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Ok, I understand:

"I know that you object to getting mass "for free" from space and time alone; however, that appears to be the case in nature. I tried to pry from you a direct derivation for your belief that mass preexists space and time, because I thought that you would see, through making that effort, that your contention over the "fundamental units of length and seconds" is exactly the same thing as space and time. And from that, be able to see that in order for unity in nature to be served, that space and time are not independently real -- just as Minkowski had it -- and only the unity of spacetime guarantees unity of physical phenomena."

For the record:

I don't need pried into a belief in theory. Theory needs to be pried from physics equations beginning with f=ma. Length an time in f=ma are not space and time. They have only to do with objects and their behavior. The behavior of objects is the stuff that empirical evidence is made of. Patterns in changes of velocity of objects do not represent activities performed by space and time. Finally: Nature is not theoretical.

"From my point of view, you seem to be fighting aganst yourself."

Just to be clear in case this expresses your view that I controadict myself, I do not see that being the case. I do see theorists espousing a universe consisting of a mix of real, empirically substantiated, properties and invented properties. I am fghting against the invented properties. That includes properties that are real but their representations are invented, without empirical justification, and therefore are forced to become subservient to theory.

That was a nice chat. Thank you for your time and messages.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Patterns in changes of velocity of objects do not represent activities performed by space and time."

Then you have to *prove* that statement, James. That's the key to your contradictions: our data from spacetime says that we cannot distinguish measured changes in relations between spacetime mass points, and "activities performed by" -- not space and time -- spacetime as a continuum.

Prove that we can so distinguish those changes independent of spacetime -- with results, not personal belief.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Me: "Patterns in changes of velocity of objects do not represent activities performed by space and time."

You: "Then you have to *prove* that statement, James. That's the key to your contradictions: our data from spacetime says that we cannot distinguish measured changes in relations between spacetime mass points, and "activities performed by" -- not space and time -- spacetime as a continuum.

Prove that we can so distinguish those changes independent of spacetime -- with results, not personal belief."

Me: I have to prove that space and time engage in changes of velocity? You have to be a theorist to make that charge. You have no evidenc about space and/or time doing anything. You have evidence that objects, both light and matter interact. I have great respect for the talents of physics theorists. I do not agree that their universe has empirical proof or is even logical. If theorists cannot even admit that the choice to make mass an indefinable property was arbitary and itself a theoretical decision, then I can't follow their footsteps. Mass as an indefinable property has been tried. Mass as a definable property should have, with equal deliberation, been investigated and tried. These arguments you put forward as if mass in higher level theory verifies that mass is an indefinable property are not good arguments. Of course higher level theory that is based upon mass as an indefinable property is consistent with mass being an indefinable property. I will press hard against that argument and demonstrate for theorists what it is that results from developing higher level theory based upon mass as an definable property. I am not fighting against myself. I am fighting for an action that should have been set into motion a lot earlier than now.

James Putnam

[deleted]

"I have to prove that space and time engage in changes of velocity?"

No, James. I think you still don't get it. Last time, I promise :-)

You have to be able to prove that you can *distinguish* changes of velocities of objects from changes in relations of spacetime points (which are always measured between mass points, never as points of space alone) to each other.

And you have to do that experimentally. It's already been done for spacetime. Now prove that those experiments are only illusion, and you've got something; relativity is falsified.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"You have to be able to prove that you can *distinguish* changes of velocities of objects from changes in relations of spacetime points (which are always measured between mass points, never as points of space alone) to each other."

You keep putting mass-points forward instead of position of objects. Lets see if I understand you. My understanding is that mass-points is a geometric methodology for solving position of objects. Is this correct? If mass-points are themselves empirically verified objects, then what is the evidence that they produce patterns in changes of velocity? If they do not exhibit those patterns themselves, then they are not verified. If what you say distills down to patterns in changes of velocity of objects of matter, then the rest is invented. What is the physical status of mass-points?

James Putnam

[deleted]

"My understanding is that mass-points is a geometric methodology for solving position of objects. Is this correct?"

It is, but that's not my context. I mean that relations among particles ("position of objects"), not among points of space, is the only physical standard of measure. At the relativistic level, these changing relations are indistinguishable from changes in the shape of spacetime. ("Matter tells space how to bend; space tells matter how to move" ~ J A Wheeler)

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"I mean that relations among particles ("position of objects"), not among points of space, is the only physical standard of measure. At the relativistic level, these changing relations are indistinguishable from changes in the shape of spacetime. ("Matter tells space how to bend; space tells matter how to move" ~ J A Wheeler)"

Then what I said is correct. You are asking me to prove that the motion of objects of matter are not dependent on and connected to motion of space and time. Motion is changes of velocity. You are saying that I must prove that space and time or space-time is not undergoing changes of velocity? I have only the motion of objects of matter to work with, but, I must disprove that the correct representation of motion of objects is to express that motion in terms of space and time or space-time? Just to be clear, the patterns of changes of velocity of objects are expressed in units of kilograms and seconds. Neither of these units have meaning beyond their dependence upon the motion of objects of matter. If you continue to insist that meters per second and meters per second squared refer to properties of space-time, then you are asking me to prove that meters and seconds do not refer to measurements of properties of space-time?

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

Please grasp that relativity allows that space and time are not, independently, physically real. Only *spacetime.*

I practically slept with this book under my pillow for about 20 years. Maybe it will help.

(Thank you, Project Gutenberg.)

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Please grasp that relativity allows that space and time are not, independently, physically real. Only *spacetime.*"

I beginning to wonder why you keep saying these things. I do grasp it. I don't believe it. I don't believe it because there is no empirical evidence to prove it. There is empirical evidence for more practical explanations. One is mine. I have said that the speed of light measures as C locally. Measuring as a constant and being a constant are not the same thing. The idea of relativity theory that space and time undergo corresponding movements is enough to cause serious question about its reliance upon a constant speed of light.

I have said that the speed of light slows as it approaches matter. When I said that I was thinking in terms of the cause of gravity. It applies to neutral atoms. For protons, photons slow down much more significantly as they approach a proton. For electrons, photons speed up significantly as they approach an electron. The mass for either one of those is the inverse of the acceleration of light. That is the property of mass in the equation of f=ma. There is work done to demonstrate this. The resulting equations and values fit very well with these conditions. A great deal is explained. More is explained than is presently explained by theoretical physics.

The explanations have to do with demonstrable properties that are empirically verifiable. They are empirically verifiable by the patterns of changes of velocity of particles because, they are the descriptions of the reasons for the changes of velocity of particles. More importantly, they are directly derived from empirical evidence. Their units are those of that empirical evidence.

Particles are defined by their effects upon the speeds of photons. It is simple and does not involve inventions. It only involves making mass a definable property and developing equations that demonstrate the consequences of this act. This is all stated in very short form for any other readers that might have been following our conversation.

I want them to know what I am saying. I understand that you judge my work against the standard of relativity theory. Please understand that relativity theory is not a standard for me. It is too unrealistic to take seriously. It is too unempirical to take seriously. It is too lacking in empirical evidence to take seriously. It is untestable. We cannot do experiments on space or time. We have no empirically justified reason for claiming that they undergo motion. That is what I say.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

Okay, I should leave this alone. But James, you keep making *demonstrably* wrong statements to support your belief.

You write, "The idea of relativity theory that space and time undergo corresponding movements is enough to cause serious question about its reliance upon a constant speed of light."

Just the opposite! If you know the history of relativity, you know that general relativity used Mach's principle (in fact, the term itself was coined by Einstein) to explain why relative motion is limited to the capacity of bodies to commmunicate over distance. In Mach's mechanics, space is only a convenient fiction; infinitely separated bodies all move relative to other bodies. Spacetime covariant functions foreshorten this relative motion to what can be communicated within the bounds of locality; i.e., the limit of *measurement* functions. The constant speed of light is only a spacetime "ruler" of sorts, giving us a standard by which to explain what we observe, such as Einstein lensing, the precession of the orbit of Mercury, time dilation and Lorentz contraction. I would ask if you have an alternate theory to explain these *empirical* observations, and I expect you would respond that theory doesn't explain anything. I'm afraid that it does. Evidence doesn't explain itself.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

You: "You write, "The idea of relativity theory that space and time undergo corresponding movements is enough to cause serious question about its reliance upon a constant speed of light." "

Me: Lets make certain that my meaning is clear. The idea that space contracts and time dilates as a function of a diminishing distance from matter is enough to give reason to question the practice of using C to derive Einstein's length and time equations and e=mc^2.

You: "Just the opposite! If you know the history of relativity, you know that general relativity used Mach's principle (in fact, the term itself was coined by Einstein) to explain why relative motion is limited to the capacity of bodies to commmunicate over distance. In Mach's mechanics, space is only a convenient fiction; infinitely separated bodies all move relative to other bodies. Spacetime covariant functions foreshorten this relative motion to what can be communicated within the bounds of locality; i.e., the limit of *measurement* functions. The constant speed of light is only a spacetime "ruler" of sorts, giving us a standard by which to explain what we observe, such as Einstein lensing, the precession of the orbit of Mercury, time dilation and Lorentz contraction. I would ask if you have an alternate theory to explain these *empirical* observations, and I expect you would respond that theory doesn't explain anything. I'm afraid that it does. Evidence doesn't explain itself."

Me: Mach was correct that "infinitely separated bodies all move relative to other bodies." Einstein was incorrect to use C when deriving his special relativity equations. The effects referred to as time dilation and length contraction are real. The equations representing them are derivable without using C as the 'ruler'.

The elimination of C as the 'ruler' allows the alternate derivations to apply immediately to general relativity type problems. In other words, The effects referred to as time dilation and length contraction occur due to gravity.

For the condition of two isolated bodies widely separated, such that they have no significant 'field caused' effects on one another, moving toward each other, there will be no time dilation and no length contraction perceived or real.

Yes I do have a theory to explain 'Einstein lensing, the precession of the orbit of Mercury, time dilation and Lorentz contraction.'. I say that theory is invented. It explains back to theorists that which they decided makes sense to them. Our ability to understanding meaning in empirical evidence is due to the evidence itself.

The evidence shows us what things do. We do not know what causes things to do what they do. Theory is the practice of inventing causes and installing those invented causes into physics equations. That practice limits the usefulness of the equations to the bounds set by the theoretical properties of the invented causes.

I say that the equations of physics returned to their empirical form represents those equations in their most useful form. The condition that must be met in order to know that the equations are in their empirical form is that: The units for all terms in the equations must be formed from combinations of the units of empirical evidence. the units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.

That final point is the key to deriving all of the equations to replace Einstein's equations. The replacement equations pertain to the behavior of objects without need for space-time.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James,

You write, "The idea that space contracts and time dilates as a function of a diminishing distance from matter is enough to give reason to question the practice of using C to derive Einstein's length and time equations and e=mc^2."

Except that isn't the case. Which is why I emphasize that you keep trying to defend already falsified beliefs. The phenomena of time dilation and spatial contraction are based on *measurement* criteria, not on equations. The equations simply correspond to the facts.

"The condition that must be met in order to know that the equations are in their empirical form is that: The units for all terms in the equations must be formed from combinations of the units of empirical evidence. the units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds."

The units of space and time ARE meters and seconds. Or kilometers and light years. Or any other scale one chooses.

"That final point is the key to deriving all of the equations to replace Einstein's equations. The replacement equations pertain to the behavior of objects without need for space-time."

James, it is just incredible to me that you say in the same breath that spacetime is unnecessary for meters and seconds to exist. If you mean that meters and seconds exist independently of each other, that is only true -- as I have said before -- to the limit of relativity, i.e., Newtonian mechanics. Whatever "replaces" Einstein simply won't correspond to the physical facts, the *empirical* results that you say are important and yet, contradicting yourself, campaign against.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"The units of space and time ARE meters and seconds. Or kilometers and light years. Or any other scale one chooses."

It is not space nor time that are in those equations. The units of real space and real time are not meters and seconds.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The units of real space and real time are not meters and seconds."

Well *that's* intriguing!

What differentiates fake space and time from real space and time? Why do you use the same terminology for real space and time units, that we use for fake space and time units?

I just don't get it, James.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

You quoting me: "The units of real space and real time are not meters and seconds."

You: Well *that's* intriguing!

Me: Ok its intriguing. It is also obvious.

You: "What differentiates fake space and time from real space and time? Why do you use the same terminology for real space and time units, that we use for fake space and time units?"

An example of fake space is space-time. Space and time could have units. The could even have units of meters and seconds. But, they do not now have units of meters and seconds. The standards for meters and seconds have to do with the behavior of objects. Space and time have no demonstrated behaviors. The closest we could come to establishing units for real, as opposed to someone's choice object cyclic event, is to determine a universally constant measure of time. That would not guarantee that we are measuring real time, but, it is the very best that we could do. And, if it is universally constant, we can assume units for real time. Those units can be seconds. I have shown it in terms of seconds. It doesn't change. We don't change it. The motion of objects does not affect it.

There is no universally constant unit for length of real space. The best we can do is to establish a universally constant locally measured unit of length. That length can have units of meters. That length can be determined by use of the already established universally constant measure of time.

The terminology can be confusing. The cause of that confusion is the loose use of the words time and space by theorists. The 't' in physics equations is not real time. It is some object's cyclic time. The 'l' in physics equations is not a measure of space. It is a chosen object's length.

You: "I just don't get it, James."

I know.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"You: 'I just don't get it, James.'

'I know.'"

Really, though, who does? Or even could? If you want to create something new, build a new vessel for it. It simply doesn't fit into the old.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Really, though, who does 'get it' [meaning my "James's" approach to physics]? Or even could? If you want to create something new, build a new vessel for it. It simply doesn't fit into the old."

It has to fit with empirical evidence not the theoretical inventions. It must express itself rooted firmly in what it is that empirical evidence tells us. Empirical evidence tells us about patterns in changes of velocity of objects.

Who could understand it? I don't know many and I don't mention anyone anyway. I guess since no one speaks up on my behalf I should give it up huh? You know that cannot be a standard in science. Original work is almost exclusively an individual effort. Others just won't stay with it as long as it takes to think it out, to write it out, to argue the case. And, to keep doing this over and over. I find it interesting that I say the equations of physics should be firmly rooted in empirical evidence and expressed in the terms that that evidence is expressed it. It can easily be done. I have done it. I have written it. I have shown it. I have argued its case. Yet, you wish to insist that the theoretical inventions are the real physics and don't understand why I can't see that that must be the case.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

" ... you wish to insist that the theoretical inventions are the real physics and don't understand why I can't see that that must be the case."

Not at all. I only say what conventional scientific method says: the truth of a proposition is determined by correspondence between abstract theory and physical result. The empirical results supporting relativity that you say don't exist -- do.

Tom

« Previous Page Next Page »