Edwin,
Thank you for reading my essay. My remark regarding heat being energy in transit was directed at non-physicists. I didn't believe that anyone who was familiar with the Clausius' derivation of thermodynamic entropy would need to have heat defined. Yet, when I reached the point where I was applying my own work to thermodynamic entropy, I decided late to include the definition of heat to make clear why I felt it was necessary to replace an increment of energy with an increment of heat. Physicists do not read what I write except on very rare occasions. I had the non-physicist in mind who might have read that far feeling comfortable with the word heat but perhaps not fully understanding why I was making the substitution.
I do define my terms in my original work. I do not define everthing, as evidenced by my essay 'The Absoluteness of Time' when I prepare short descriptions. I abruptly make the substitution of an incrment of time to replace the theory of electric charge because it would require starting from the beginning with making mass a defined property and moving step by careful step to electromagnetism. That first essay included the derivation of replacement equations for Maxwell's equations without using electric charge. That is what I thought I had to do. If I abruptly began by saying that there is no such thing as electric charge then all would be lost as it probably is for anyone reading this.
Getting to the point: My work is about returning physics equations to their theoretical roots. In other words, ridding the equations of the inventions of theorists. The decision to make mass an indefinable property was such an invention. An inescapable consequence of reversing that decision is that all properties that follow must also be expressible in the terms of empirical evidence. Those terms remain meters and seconds. Electric charge is no exception. The reason I give for taking these actions is solid from my point of view. I don't need theoretical intrusions onto the equations that I use.
I did introduce the empirical units of mass as the inverse of acceleration. I can't fruitfully explain immediately what that means phsyically because it becomes immediately evident that relativity theory is wrong. Yet, the physical meaning of the defined mass removes the need for any causes, including electric charge, other than one. The one cause is the variation of the speed of light. In my full length presentation of my work, I explain every step as best I can. My impression is that, at least in terms of establishing the fundamentals, I do a much more careful job than theoretical physicists of the past have done. That which is gotten rid of is gotten rid of for good reason along with presenting its replacement. The variation of the speed of light accounts for all effects that I have dealt with thus far inlcuding explaining thermodynamic entropy, a property that otherwise remains unexplained.
The subject of electric charge requires its own treatment. There are in today's theoretical physics four indefinable properties. They are distance, time, mass and temperature. Mass and temperature were easily replaced. Electric charge was not an indefinable property and yet it was an invented property. The path followed to find its replacement was not as easy as for mass and temperature. It was necessary to wait until finding its magnitude re-appearing in the new work on its own free of previous interpretation. That is how the increment of time came into use. Its use is incredibly successful at achieving fundamental, always clearly present, unity throughout all of my work. Recognizing that is important. The definition of heat pales in comparison.
I feel that I presented, in short form, a powerful presentation. If it is not received well, then it just joins with past receptions.
James Putnam