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

Hi Yuri,

Yes I know. I read it. I will think about his essay more before saying anything to him. I defined G in my essay, not as a universal constant, but as a simple empirically based relationship between the electron and proton of the hydrogen atom. I need to be sure that I fully understand John Moffat's approach. Thank you for the alert.

James

Yuri,

I do not think that way about professionals. There is variety among them as there is among any group, but, PHD's have earned the credentials necessary to speak as authorities. Their responsibilities as extensive and time consuming. Even cordial replies sometimes must wait. They face a difficulty in responding to non-professionals.

If they respond at all the chances are the correspondence will become prolonged and usually for no good reason. The worst thing they can do is try to be diplomatic. Most non-professionals, who are always swarming to contact the professionals, take politeness as an invitation to teach the professional. Surely you know that almost all non-professional evaluations of theoretical physics are clearly wrong.

If the professionals are honest in their evaluations, they are often treated disrespectfully. When they can and do give of their time and their opinion it should be accepted gracefully. Wait and while waiting don't use words like 'arrogantism'. If you don't receive a response then try somewhere else. I say this as someone who is occasionally treated disrespectfully and censored by professionals.

Appreciate that you have the chance to rub elbows with professionals. If that is all you receive from some, it is more than you will receive elsewhere. It should be clear to you and to all that I have been around the Internet for many years and there is no place better to have a chance to say what one thinks scientifically than exists here.

This is the only place that I converse with professionals other than if they contact me first through email. I never contact them elsewhere. If they see something I say as deserving a compliment, there are some who would and have stepped forward and said so and I thank them for that.

James

Yuri,

I don't know him. If I did know him as an acquaintance, I would be sure to not talk about physics with him. I have a close relationship with a physics professor and never would I drag him into a discussion about my ideas. The Internet is a fine medium for discourse. It isn't totally relationship free, but, one can usually speak honestly about what they think. Often the conversation remains focused. Relationships, to whatever extent they exist, are of lesser concern and perhaps don't have an affect. In real life I don't burden friends with my ideas about physics. The relationships mean more. As I said in my other message, I never contact professionals directly unless it is to answer their emails. They get plagued enough!

James

Yuri,

I have read from his writings. He is not here so I don't have an opinion to give. If a professional introduced someone else's, perhaps Stenger's, writings into a conversation, then I would probably address those writings. Perhaps you have noticed that I speak in my own words about my own ideas and do not reference other's works. I feel free to speak about the work of persons like Newton and Einstein. I think that Einstein messed up theoretical physics. He has a great many defenders,so, I don't think I am being unfair because of his absence. I think I have only spoken critically about other professional's ideas when they expressed their ideas here as part of FQXi. I know then that they could respond if they feel it is necessary.

I recognize that your message was not asking for all of this, but, in light of your use of the word 'arrogantism' I thought I should make my own opinions clear about professionals and the works of professionals.

James

Joy,

I put your name in the address only because I use a phrase quoted from your message at Tom's place. I don't expect you to put in any extra time on this. I know you have greater important challenges. But, I am borrowing a phrase you used:

"It arises from our attempt to fix the problem by hand rather than following the natural course of mathematics."

Well, here comes one of the messages that is self-serving and that I hate to bother professionals with, however, Joy's statement is as close as I have seen by a professional to appear to me to be saying what I want said. First let me hasten to add that I feel certain that we do not mean it the same way. But, for me, the natural course of mathematics cannot tolerate multiple guesses. Each one is risky and multiple guesses fill theory with very high risk for having gone astray.

My point is this: There are guesses involved in the introductory fundamentals of theoretical physics. I think that each of them is wrong. I have pointed to the mathematical definition of mass as the first guess, later with each of the others, that took theory away from 'the natural course of mathematics'. When I say that properties of theoretical physics must be expressible in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existences are inferred, I am saying physics should instead follow 'the natural course of mathematics'.

The guesses, as in the case of mass, introduce artificiality onto the equations. Those equations, pointing as usual to f=ma, begin as empirical equations reflecting that which empirical evidence has communicated to us. As soon as the theorist adds their guess and chooses to make mass an indefinable property, solidified into the equation by means of its indefinable unit of kilograms, that equation is no longer following 'the natural course of mathematics'.

From my perspective, the natural course of mathematics requires that we adhere to that which empirical evidence gives us to work with. In terms of units, it gives us only distance and duration, meaning meters and seconds.

James

Joy,

I have used your phrase 'natural course of mathematics' over at Fred's place. I did not mention your name or make any connection to you. I hope you don't mnd. It seemed best considering the ideas I write about. I like your phrase and will probably use it again as I think more about my own perspective on the 'natural course of mathematics' with regard to my work. It began with your meaning and not with mine. If you prefer that I avoid using it in order to avoid my possibly causing confusion, then I will do so.

James

Gravity is a force. Newton's theory of gravity makes clear that there is no reason for anything to feel fee-fall until they reach the point where the force of gravity becomes clearly non-linear in its local application. The theory of the event horizon of black-holes sets up an example of gravity tearing any object apart. The obvious reason for objts to be torn apart is that gravity is a force. It causes acceleration. It uses the same mass. It can stress or tear objects apart. That is what forces do. Any force that is evenly applied will not be felt.

James

Frank,

I am glad to see you have enterred an essay. Perhaps it will posted. I don't agree with your ideas. But you have the opportunity to say your piece in your own words. Best wishes.

James

I recognize that one of my messages posted here a few days ago referred to the wrong person. I deleted it and apologize to that person. I will not name the person that I incorrectly identified. The message is gone.

James

Consantinos Ragazas,

Hi, I glad to see you are doing quite well in the ratings. I remember that your work included some correct answers that we both agree on. With regard to a wave nature, which is what I assume you are referring to by 'propogating as a wave'. My first essay here for the Nature of Time contest included, among other very important results, the derivation of Maxwell's equations without including electric charge, and no elecric or magnetic fields. In other words, nothing to make a wave out of. Each of my essays presents original work that does not include a wave nature. I will stick with my photon model. Along with extensive important results, it includes unity for all properties right from the beginning of the derivation of theory. Good luck to you in the contest.

James