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

Evenly applied force and magnetism:

There is a large magnet and a small piece of steel. The surface area of the magnet facing the steel is very large, flat, and square. The magnetic force, inline with the center of the magnet's surface, closely approximates a constant with distance. No other influences. The steel object, inline with the center of the area of the magnet, is attracted to the magnet, accelerating as it moves closer, until it hits and sticks on the magnetic's surface.

The magnetic force was evenly applied to the steel object right from the start of the experiment. The constant force ensures this to be the case. That steel object will not 'feel' anything nor undergo deformation due to the magnetic force. Once the object is stuck to the magnet it experiences deformation. It 'feels' squeezed by the force. A blindfolded observer, on that piece of steel, can perform no experiment to determine whether the piece of steel is held to a magnet or is undergoing a constant acceleration.

The conclusion, in keeping with the equivalence principle, is that magnetic force and acceleration are the same thing!

James

Tom,

Moving this discussion into my own blog unless Vessilyn chooses to re-open it:

""I understand those things. They do not address the question of why does the freely falling person not feel the force of gravity.""

"Yes they do. No particle or system of particles is in a privileged inertial frame. Think about it."

I have thought about it. Newton's law of gravity should have caused anyone to expect that there would be no feeling of the force of gravity for a freely falling person. That person accelerates downward because gravity is pulling them downward. They do not feel that force because that force is evenly applied to all parts. What is it in the example, discounting all of the relativity theory add-on to this simple example, that would be expected to cause the falling person to feel the force?

""It is not because gravity is no force. The persons feeling is not evidence for that conclusion. I gave the reason why there is no feeling.""

"A person is a system of particles. The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence."

The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence. The internal evidence tells us that the person has no reason to feel the effect of the force of gravity so long as they are falling freely and not partially resisting it in any significant manner. The particles resist falling at infinite speed. However, they do this all in unison. There is no change physically for the freely falling person. They have no reason to feel differently.

James

The question of why a freely falling person would not feel the effect of the force of gravity upon them has nothing to do with believing or denying anyone's theory. The introduction of length contraction or time dilation or space-time or priviledged or unpriviledged frames into the discussion is unnecessary theoretical discourse. The fact is that there is no reason for a freely falling person to feel the effect of the force of gravity. There is no physical effect upon their person. No one's theory is necessary to explain that which is obvious. The freely falling person is not being cruntched up. Any disdain for lack of appreciation for relativity theory has nothing to do wih the problem. No one's theory is needed to explain that which has no existence.

James

The prevelance of repeated efforts to put space-time forward as an explanation for effects observed to occur to objects invites repeated efforts to make clear that neither space nor time have ever been represented in the equations of physics. Both clocks and rods are themselves objects suffering physical effects thereby giving them a regular appearance in physics equations. Rods reach out in space and clocks cycle during time. Rods are not space and clocks are not time. Rods contain cyclic activity and clocks extend across space. Rods are not time and clocks are not space. Time has yet to exhibit physical effects. Space has yet to exhibit physical effects. There is still no empirical evidence for either of these cases ever occurring.

James

Theoretical physics involves choices and guesses about that which we know too little or perhaps know nothing. Incorrect ideas forced onto physics equations cause corruption of those equations and any others that follow from them. Theoretical physics has always been at high risk for introducing misunderstandings and just plain wrong conclusions about the nature of the universe.

My essay in this contest corrects the first error of theoretical physics. That correction also immediately corrects the first error of relativity theory. That first error of physics is the decision to make mass an indefinable property. My correction makes mass into a definable property.

This correction to Newton's equation f=ma returns that equation to its empirical form cleaned of theoretical corruption. It becomes once again a resource for learning that which empirical evidence is trying to tell us about the nature of the universe.

A major theoretical obstruction to gaining understanding is removed and the equation f=ma is released from its bondage of subservience to a wrong unjustified theoretical guess made when we knew very little.

James

Successful prediction is not sufficient to prove the correctness of theory. If the theorist has been diligent in using only equations that accurately model the patterns observed in empirical evidence, then that theorists imaginings, even when imposed upon those equations, will often not prevent accurate predictions. The successful predictions follow from both extrapolations that extend the patterns into areas where they remain valid and interpolations of the patterns which the equations are accurately modeled to mimic.

James

Regrading emergence:

Emergence is a name for an effect or effects that occur from combinations of microscopic parts who's own definitions do not merge to predict an apparently new macroscopic property deemed to be responsible for those unforseen effects. So, the theorist who trusts in the definitions of the theoretical descriptions of the microscopic parts accepts the new unpredicted macroscopic property as a free uncaused bonus.

Since all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe must have been provided for right from the beginning of the universe, the so-called emergent properties are as much due to cause as is any other existing property. The idea that the universe itself is emergent is a philosophical choice. It pretends that explanations are not really necessary. It pretends that beginnings themselves emerge from nothingness for no dedicated purpose. The ultimate escape for the theorist.

Theorists do not know what cause is. Inventing causes is risky business. Empirical evidence could disprove an invention at any time. Removing cause from the universe relieves the theorist of their greatest weakness. There is though a problem that remains. Theory is dependent upon inventing causes throughout its development.

The efficient way to avoid explanations is to declare all properties to be emergent. The inventions of theorists become immune to questions about origins. The irony is that causes, that theoretically no longer require explanation, never had explanations theoretical or otherwise anyway. What was required before was never fulfilled. Emergence masks over the still very real need for that fullfillment.

My conclusion is that emergence is a theoretical 'un-theory'. Definitely not something to be relied upon when pursuing discovery of the nature of the universe.

James

Nature of the universe:

The nature of the universe is all that which has produced all of the effects that have occurred in this universe. Those effects reach their greatest height in the development of human freewill.

Physics does not tell us about the nature of the universe. Rather it offers us a perspective on how to model and make use of mechancal knowledge. There are important missing parts of nature that physics cannot tell us about. Physics cannot tell us about cause, time, space, and intelligence. We learn about patterns in changes of velocity of objects from physicists, and, we learn how they imagine what cause or causes might produce those effects.

Imagination is good. It is an aid to learning and probably even more than that. It is a self teaching tool. Still, there is more to learning than imagination. Leaving physics aside, well really theoretical physics aside, the rest of the nature of the universe requires our attention. The difficulties with including theoretical physics involve its mechanical attitude and its inventions of the mind that fill in artificially for gaps in our understanding.

The knowledge that experimental physics gives us can tell us, if it remains in uncorrupted form, the knowledge of which it has to share and communicate to us. The equations of physics, left in their empirical forms, represent unadulterated learning. Theory is too often an added on obsruction that places a veil over our eyes and prevents us from learning the nature of the universe. Instead we learn what the theoretical physicist imagines.

Yet there are ways for us to learn that the theoretical physicsts cannot interfere with if we choose to make use of them. The irony is that it is physics that tells us this. Not because it intends to. Ideology and philosophy have become too ingrained into theoretical physics to allow easy access to to understanding the nature of the universe and ourselves.

This message will not tell more about it. My essay has to do with revealing the extensive great changes that must be made to theoretical physics. Even though my own work involves using terms that either are theoretical or are borrowed from theoretical physics, that is not the main purpose of it nor for my previous essays.

The main purpose is to say to others that theory is an obstruction to learning and should be removed from physics. This current esay indicates how that might be achieved. The reward is also indicated by the work. The reward is to find a better path to learning the nature of the universe. That path relies as much as possible upon empirical knowledge. The making of mass and force into definable properties is the first step necessary to move forward in this approach to learning the nature of the universe.

James

Anton W.M. Biermans,

Hi Anton,

I neglected to follow through and comment on your essay. Sorry about that. I didn't recall my statement until you refreshed my memory here. I did read your essay. Viewing the universe from both an inside and outside perspective. This message you have written here is well stated. I really should look back at your essay again before commenting on it over at your blog. Thank you for your message.

James

Hi Yuri,

Thank you for the links. Are you going to submit an essay?

James

Was logged out:

A current emergency escape for theoretical physics is 'emergent properties': was my addition to my quiet blog.

james

Gene Barbee,

Thank you for your message and for this question:

"You said this eliminates gravity as a fundamental force and I was expecting this explains the source of gravity. Can you explain?"

I was asked to expain my point about two months ago and need to write that response. I have the essay and its math to refer to. I will first write the answer in message form and refer to the essay and its math. The reason for this is that all answers that I give result from the change I presented for mass in my essay. That is the key step in returning theoretical physics to its empirical roots and the unity which it recaptures.

The choice to make mass an indefinable, or as it is stated in some modern texts, a primary property, was the beginning of injecting disunity into physics equations. Making it into a definable property, which it should always have been, begins a process of development leading from a single cause to all effects and constants. Other properties that have been treated as causes go away and are no longer needed.

The force of gravity is due to that single original fundamental cause. My message will explain how I move from explaining mass to explaining gravity. I will try to have that message written in the next few days.

James