Edwin,

Well, I kept at it and improved the paper immensely. It was re-submitted late today but on time for the deadline. I don't know yet it its form is fully acceptable, but, the conference representative seemed appreciative of having received it. I was assigned to make a remote presentation at 9:30 AM Eastern time. Unfortunately, I will be in a small village on the ocean in Oregon. It will be 6:30 AM for me. There is no cell phone service, but, there is wi-fi. I think I will set myself up outside on the beach with the ocean behind me. There are huge picturesque rock formations out in the water. I will have to find out first how far the wi-fi reaches from the old cabin that I will be staying in. It is almost on the beach itself. I think it sounds like it could be a fun experience.

I did a remote presentation last year and could see myself as I did it. I come across looking even older than I am; and, with my mannerisms, I appear to be something of a character. A lot of smiling and head moving. Also, I learned that my progressive lenses cause me to raise my head up to see the computer screen. So, a camera located on the computer picks me up with my nose and chin sticking somewhat upward. It added to the character look. It was humorous to see myself doing the presentation. There was nothing I could do but just go along with it and keep smiling. :)

James

James,

Cameras are for young guys. But as long as you can keep smiling, you're OK.

" ... the asinine effort by Tom to discredit my work."

James, your attitude makes me wary of saying anything at all to you. If you don't subject your work to criticism, and instead advise your critics to read everything you've ever written and ignore the contradictions, the work ends up being of use to no one but yourself. Which is fine, if that is all you want.

In any case, if your conclusions are true, nothing that I or anyone else does or says can discredit them. However, when you make statements like "Mass is the inverse of acceleration ..." and then go one to say that therefore relativity must be wrong, you betray a profound innocence of relativity -- Einstein already accounted for that possibility when he derived special relativity in the first place. Einstein's equation for rest energy, E_0 = mc^2, follows from E^2 = m^2c^4 (pc)^2, where p represents momentum. A massive particle of zero momentum must therefore have negative mass. No problem there -- physicists, particularly cosmologists, have plenty of uses for the idea of negative mass.

If as you claim, though, mass is undefined (it isn't) -- then defining mass as the inverse of acceleration only compounds the problem because it defines mass as existing only in negative form. Of course, we know this isn't true.

Edwin quoted Smolin's latest book (which I am also reading), "In general relativity mass can only be defined globally. ...as measured from far, far away (from infinity actually). In the case of local mass [...] there is no clear definition yet. [And] mass density is a similarly ill-defined concept in general relativity." These facts have long been known -- which is what led to the conclusion of my last essay that the source of all information is a point at infinity. (This is no "pi in the sky" claim, either; the mathematics, if not the physics, is rigorous and mostly understood.)

Now, how would you react if I accused you of making an asinine effort to discredit Einstein? (I don't think I've ever said such a thing to you -- though I might have said something similar to Pentcho Valev, and if not, I should have.)

Let's meet facts with facts, and forget the bluster.

I'm sorry to hear you were ill, and glad to hear that you are feeling better.

Tom

    Tom,

    I acknowledge receipt of the last word. Thank you.

    James Putnam

    Edwin,

    I have been rewriting this essay for future use. You were correct about my not defining terms when needed. I find that by my squeezing it too much that there are rough parts that others could not be expected to go along with. One example is when I speak of what temperature is. My derivation for my statement is missing. Later my substitution for electric charge is also unsupported.

    While it is the case that I gave references where the supporting work can be found, I understand that readers aren't going to accept such radical changes just on the face of them. I should have held onto my essay longer, let time pass, and re-read it before submitting it. Maybe I would have found a better way to proceed. While I don't think that even a well written version would have been well received, readers deserve a better effort.

    I am considering all of this while preparing for my other presentation elsewhere. My other paper couldn't contain everything I wanted to say either, but, I will be prepared to produce additional slides with quick explanations for parts that deserve to be questioned. All of this has to be done efficiently within a limited scheduled time. This is something I need to experience more.

    James Putnam

    7 days later

    James,

    If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

    Jim

    13 days later

    Dear James. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

    Vladimir

    Hello James,

    I have to give you a mixed review, heavy on the critique. First off; it was mean spirited of you to require folks to read another paper first, and then to change the heading within that paper so it no longer matches the reference in your essay abstract. I have to agree with the comments above that you did not clearly define your usage of Q with the first equation. You do spell out what you are doing (terms wise) on the top of page 2, but by then you have lost some readers because of head scratching.

    I think you would have had a much easier time proving your premise, if you did not try so hard to connect it with your existing body of work. Your basic idea in the abstract is sound, as the usage of Entropy is often confused, and Thermodynamics gives it a specific meaning. Clausius clearly defined movement of heat, but already with Boltzmann we see the confusion creep in that entropy is disorder, or a product thereof. Search for papers by Harvey Leff which sort this out nicely. My friend Bernard Bligh, who is a hard-core experimental realist, would agree with you strongly on several points, but take you to task and argue with you about others - like the connection to your new Physics theory.

    I have to credit you for trying, but this is one essay that would definitely benefit from following the structure of intro, body, conclusions, where you tell folks what you are to establish, then you make your point, then you explain what you just said. Your failure to do that reduces comprehension greatly of a point worth making. But you also fail to really address the core essay topic until the very end. That's the piece of explanation you need in the intro, to make a paper like this work. I have attached one paper by Leff that may be of interest.

    Regards,

    JonathanAttachment #1: entropylanginterp.pdf

      4 days later

      Hi Jonathan,

      Thank you for your detailed review. I also find the essay to be poorly constructed. Edwin was correct about it.

      James Putnam

      Hi James,

      WOW! - was the first thing that came to mind when I read your words, "This 'absolute opposites' treatment of mixed versus unmixed..." for indeed the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment mirrors your statement. You are definitely onto something. Although your mathematical approach is different than my approach, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

      I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

      Regards,

      Manuel

        Manuel S Morales,

        Thank you for your very nice message. I believe that I have presented material of great importance over and over again here. It has not been well received at all. It is very different to receive a message showing appreciation for the work presented. My other essay entries, there are now five, one each for each contest strongly support what I have said in this last essay. This essay, in turn, was meant to supply the origins of my work bringing unity in support of all of the results presented in all five essays. It was to be the key to completing an understanding of what I have been presenting. The essay clearly did not accomplish that goal until receiving your message. Thank you very much for reading and rating my essay. I look forward to reading and rating your essay.

        James Putnam

        The word 'Indefinable' is important to understand when reading my essay. It is a word that used to be relied upon in introductory physics texts. Its meaning was perfectly clear. It means: An indefinable property is a property that cannot b e defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Properties are represented in equations by means of their units. An indefinable property will have indefinable units.

        An indefinable unit is: A unit that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. There are four such units in physics. They are: meters, seconds, kilograms, and degrees. All other units are definable in terms of two or more of these units. The units of meters and seconds, are naturally indefinable because they are the units of empirical evidence. The units of kilograms and degrees are theoretical units because they are made indefinable due to ignorance.

        My essay makes the point that there should be no theoretical indefinable units. This means that neither kilograms nor degrees should have been made indefinable. My work corrects this problem. For readers who may be interested in reading further about indefinable physics properties please read this essay from my website. It is only four pages long.

        In today's texts the words 'primary' and 'secondary' properties replacing the words 'indefinable' and 'definable' properties. This change lacks the clarity of the original wordings. Something of great importance happened at the very beginning of theoretical physics and the original wording makes clear that that beginning is flawed. My work fixes the flaw.

        James Putnam

        Thank you James for the kind words. I hope you will find my essay worthy of a reciprocal rating in kind.

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

        Dear James,

        I like that you have approached using entropy. I have too in my essay. Also what you've said about length and time and definable indefinable is good. I agree that your essay is more real than abstract. I too have been frustrated by certain people suggesting pure abstract nature, this missing the point completely, so I'm pleased you cleared it up above. Your essay was interesting, relevant and well written.

        Best wishes for the contest,

        Antony

        James,

        In response to your question you made on my essay page, I would like to explore this with you via email. Please let me know what email address you wish to use for our future correspondence. You can email me at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

        I look forward to hearing from you.

        Regards,

        Manuel

        Dear James,

        Well done for your efforts to shed light and examine the different definitions of entropy, a much misunderstood entity. A rating of 6 I think sits well with me.

        I think your proposed definition of temperature may help resolve some problems as I have often wondered what the entropy increase would be if temperature was about 0K in the equation, ∆S = ∆E/T. As you noted, "The thermodynamic entropy at a temperature of approximately zero degrees Kelvin is very large". How large can this get? Is there any technological application to be derived from such disproportionately large entropy? Perhaps, your definition of temperature would show the inapplicability of this equation for temperatures tending towards 0K?

        My essay entry focuses on a different aspect. You may view and rate also.

        Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, I wrote a follow up judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Akinbo,

          Thank you for your interesting questions:

          "I think your proposed definition of temperature may help resolve some problems as I have often wondered what the entropy increase would be if temperature was about 0K in the equation, ∆S = ∆E/T. As you noted, "The thermodynamic entropy at a temperature of approximately zero degrees Kelvin is very large". How large can this get?"

          The equation applies to an ideal gas. An ideal gas is not complex enough to model the behaviors of real gases. It is the case, though, that as the pressure of a gas approaches zero, the properties of the gas will become very much like those of an ideal gas. There is a limit to how far the ideal gas model can be applied. It does not account for intra-molecular motions. However, even in the real gas case, it is the inter-molecular transfer of kinetic energy that temperature is representative of. If the temperature could be zero, then the rate of transfer of kinetic energy would be zero; however, absolute zero cannot be reached. It cannot exist anywhere in the universe. These are my words. The reason it cannot exist anywhere in the universe is because changes of velocities occur in the universe. So long as there are changes of velocities of objects anywhere, there will always be changes of velocities of objects everywhere. Kinetic energy anywhere cannot be zero for the reason that objects can and do respond immediately to motions of other objects, no matter what the intervening distance is. Theoretical physics will offer a different response.

          "Is there any technological application to be derived from such disproportionately large entropy?"

          Speaking ideally, an infinite thermodynamic entropy could occur only if motion everywhere ceased. My essay explains why thermodynamic entropy is a measure of time only. It is the time required for kinetic energy to be absorbed at the rate that is directly proportional to temperature. I need to emphasize, that temperature would and should have been that rate. Temperature is not something different from that rate other than its units were established arbitarily. A proportionality constant corrects this problem. The units of the rate of transfer of kinetic energy and the units of temperature should be identical. In my essay it is shown that this always should have been the case. It was the use of a theoretical indefinable unit of degrees for temperature that has blocked understanding what temperature is. In answer to your question, thermodynamic entropy is not a physical something that could be exploited for mechanical purposes. It is a measure of time and time is not available for exploitation.

          "Perhaps, your definition of temperature would show the inapplicability of this equation for temperatures tending towards 0K?"

          The equation accurately represents what would be the case as the temperature approaches zero, but, only for the transfer of kinetic energy between molecules. It does not pertain to the internal temperature of a molecule. So long as a single gas molecule has particles internally that are changing their velocities then it has a temperature. Vibrational motions of the molecule can be transferred externally to another gas molecule. Even if no heat is added to the gas, as I show in my essay, the gas has an internal thermodynamic entropy and that entropy is not zero so long as molecules change their velocities for any reason.

          I will read your essay. Thank you for visiting.

          James Putnam

          In my recent message to Akinbo, I stated:

          "It was the use of a theoretical indefinable unit of degrees for temperature that has blocked understanding what temperature is."

          In this message I add that: The most important finding is that the choice of the theoretical indefinable units of kilograms for mass is responsible for blocking an understanding of what mass is. Mass is the inverse representation of the acceleration of light. Particles of matter are individual centers of accelerations of light. The 'light' that is being accelerated is photons.

          The early theoretical error of the choice to make mass an arbitrarily indefinable property with an arbitrarily indefinable unit is corrected by making mass a defined property. It is now defined using only the properties of the empirical evidence from which its existence was inferred. Higher level theory is greatly dependent upon the current indefinable nature of mass. Correcting the definition of mass changes physics theory greatly. That is what my essays have been about demonstrating.

          James Putnam