Alternative Models of Reality

I've uploaded a current version, as attached here, to the arxiv; I'll comment later to give the arxiv link.Attachment #1: U1gSept19th.pdf

In the Alternative Models of (other people's) Reality category, now that the Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs of Disproofs thread has quieted for the moment, it has long seemed to me a vortex of opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles. With the repetitions and deletions it was as though scratches appeared on the record and it started to skip. (Whoever titled the thread must have had a similar feeling.)

I provide this as one small anecdotal analogy for the fact that while vortices frequently appear in nature, their mathematical projection to infinity, commonly referred to as singularities, never does, because this is a physical phenomena that occurs when conflicting elements exchange energy and is thus created and absorbed by this larger context. So whether it is atmospheric situations of cold fronts moving over warmer air, or galactic formations of contracting mass interacting with expanding radiation, or people in conflict, the action is ultimately cyclical. Only on small scales does it look linear.

As for locality, vs. non-locality, could it be a manifestation of bottom up/linear and local, vs. top down/systemic, non-linear, scalar processes?

Regards,

John M

Interesting article, John. Thx. It seems a little "glass half-empty" about the limitations of using mathematics in physics and engineering, but not so much that it's impossible to be a little "glass half-full" about it.

Pete,

My internet provider did not for some reason, transfer the attachment of the matrix reference chart. One thing I am curious about in particular is to what extent today's quantum mechanics picture has evolved beyond Bohr's original hypothesis which in non-technical presentations portrays the 'quantum leap' as an instantaneous event. Does it not seem practical for the wavelength emerging from change in energy state of an atomic mass to be a function of the time interval of the rest frame in which that change of state occurs, expelling the quantum of each waveform? jrc

This thread getting rather long to track...

Hi Peter,

Let me say your theory is one of the more promising (second to mine of course :). So don't take whatever comments I make personal. There has to be better precision in whatever proposal you make. I admit you might be typing something and may mean something else more correct in your mind. (You forgot your name somewhere above ;). Now when you say, "Light does c through all matter systems wrt the rest frame of the matter. Simple as that. The G field only then has a secondary affect because it affects particle density. That resolves Q1.".

This cannot be wholly correct. Why?

Water is a matter system and while in its rest frame light does not do c (299792458m/s) in it, it does about 2253604947m/s. I agree what the G field can do to density and thus light transit time.

Thanks for giving us references on the Shapiro effect. It means we must take the gravitational effect on light with some pinch of salt IF there is no medium whose particle density can be affected. Why is everybody shying away from dark matter?

Hi Tom,

You should have more to say because you initially said "If you think gravity affects the speed of light, try calculating the effect and tell me what you come up with" and I have quoted Penrose and Shapiro for you. So there is no doubting on this premise that gravity has effect on light transit time, no matter how infinitessimal. Since the experiments on which SR postulates depend were carried out UNDER the "weak" gravitational field of the earth, is it unreasonable that some "weak" correction must equally apply to those postulates? Is it similarly unreasonable that the terrestrially determined value of c, MUST be corrected "weakly" to remove the weak gravitational field effect in order to now arrive at what can now rightly be called a universal value? Attempts to divide physics into Special and General when all phenomena take place in the same universe appear unhelpful and seem to always give an alibi. When confronted with a paradox in GR, one can hide and say it is due to SR and vice-versa. Galileo, Newton and even Einstein didn't do physics this way. Einstein was humble enough to abandon some concepts when inconsistencies were pointed out to him. But had the conviction to hold on to others, which many disagreed with and are now forced to eat the pie baked in Copenhagen, much to their current discomfort.

Regards,

Akinbo

The link to the arxiv version is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.4995. I won't be checking back here often from now on, so e-mail me if you have any comments.

In the following thought experiment, I consider a given universe in which there are dual directions in which the universe is expanding, both outward through the cosmological constant and inward through the implications of entropy. At the outer level, the universe incorporates more and more microstates, increasing entropy. At the inner level, no matter how far the universe expands in smaller dimensions, it cannot increase entropy without interfering with what is known about the coinciding increase in entropy and the expansion of the universe--so there is always one microstate per macrostate as the universe expands inward. My idea is that as the universe expands outward enough, it will reach a point at which it becomes the functional equivalent of itself at a very low entropy state of one microstate per macrostate. This is a point where a phase transition can occur, which can create a multiverse and avoid the problem of a universe that lacks order:

Let's say you have a universe where less entropy (to the left) does not equal the past, but inner dimensions. And more entropy (to the right) does not equal the future but bigger dimensions. And the more the universe expands outward, the more prominent the cosmic horizon becomes because the limitations of the speed of light prevent us from seeing everything in the given universe. It would appear that the outer level would always have higher entropy because it contains more microstates, even though the left side can always delve deeper into itself, because the left side is limited in what it can incorporate and not raise entropy.

If at the beginning you have a macrostate consisting of three microstates, picture a cone opening to the right and on its side, entropy will increase to the right and you will encounter more and more microstates to add to the one macrostate. Your entropy will increase as entropy=possible arrangements of microstates/macrostate. To the left, let's assume you shift your analysis from the microstate of three, to a microstate of one. You have less entropy because you have less microstates (one) per macrostate (one). You have more order, however. Assume you want to break down the one microstate even further. Assume the single microstate--and every microstate within the universe-- has two oppositional poles and can be broken down into two. But because to the left is generally less entropy (and thus fewer microstates per macrostate) you cannot consider two microstates per macrostate because it would temporarily increase entropy, with ramifications for the entire right side expansion. So the movement of macrostates to the left of the first single microstate is constantly consisting of one microstate, randomly choosing one of the two poles the microstate can be broken down to. (Don't get the quantum jitters yet.) Now, after a long time of expanding into the outer dimensions, assume that the macrostate to the right is so well mixed and encounters so few new microstates that two giant microstates are all that are left. These two microstates combine as the universe pushes further and further out, resulting in one microstate per macrostate. The right side has now become the functional equivalent of the left side. They both have one microstate per macrostate. This equivalence might be the occasion of a phase transition, whereby the left and the right of the diagram become indistinguishable and the different layers of reality can be considered almost identical multiverses.

Given Sean Carroll's hypothesis1 that the Higgs field can phase transition to a higher value and a lower energy level to avoid a high entropy environment where order is no longer possible, can we assume that a way to avoid a universe whose disorder constantly runs amok to higher and higher energy values is to consider that a universe that contains an outer macrostate with one microstate and an inner macrostate with one microstate produces low-entropy multiverses? Do these multiverses develop where the right of the diagram left off or at the left of the diagram when the universe undergoes a phase transition? Does it matter?

Is the transition to and inclusion of a multiverse (the individual multiverses are each a new microstate in a now larger macrostate multiverse system) any different functionally from how the original given outer dimensions of the universe expanded further and further to incorporate other microstates?

Does the diagram truly run from left to right or can we also assume that the given universe was simultaneously moving to the left (inner) and right (outer)?

Do the definitions above allow that each microstate contains within itself a potential macrostate that can be considered its own smaller universe, so that every point in existence is undergoing the same dynamic, not just the universe/multiverse, so that the diagram looks like each microstate is in fact its own universe, its own rightward facing cone expanding and burrowing into itself?

Thank youAttachment #1: entropy.pdf

Akinbo,

No one blog description can be complete. I've precursed 'local c' many times as referring always to c/n, identifying n as a seperate effect, so the 'red herring' confusing the seperate kinetic effect. From our recent Emails I'd thought you'd understood that.

In water, as everywhere, light does c between particles. The PMD (interaction delay) produces n. Did you know n is still only derivable experimentally? So I agree we may ALSO say (now looking at the medium globally) that light does c/n in a medium wrt the rest frame of the MEDIUM, but NOT locally wrt each particle of matter! You need to slow down and visualise that very carefully as it's quite subtle and apparently didn't 'stick'.

To also expand on what I said about gravity; Consider a 'grin' lens. It has a graded index of refraction, which may be thought of as a varying particle density distribution. This allows it to rotate the optical axis different amounts at different positions, so the focus (thought of as 'light path') is changed at different rates, 'curving' the paths to one focal point (optical axis gives the apparent source position).

The effect, which is poorly understood and called 'refraction', gives precisely the same results as 'curved space time due to gravity'. The more dense the particles the greater the gravitational potential and rotation. Rememeber the rotation is LOCAL to each particle, finally explaining why it is AWAY FROM the causal wavefront plane (see the last part of last years essay). I won't go into the 'tori orientation' and kinetic asymmetry again here.

Now if you return and read the abreviated summary again you should find it correct. Let me know if you can't rationalise it. The problem is there's a lot of 'new' stuff to assimilate all at once.

I'm sure when you manage to assimilate the whole ontology you should find it describes nature precisely. I somehow struggle to think of it in terms of 'less or more promising' than different 'theories'. I recall in general terms apart from the odd concept it only varied from yours where yours was incomplete. If you idenfify anywhere yours differs let me know and we can examine it.

Best wishes

peter

J.C.

I've just sent the full matrix of kinetic changes. Hope it get's through this time, but I may have to talk you through it, or post the commentary. It's in my main draft paper but none of the published ones yet.

Yes I agree with your comment. QM's assumptions haven't changed, and I think Neils would turn in his grave! When he said physics is about 'what we can say' he didn't assume we would make progress on that front!

Now we can say a particle can be a toroid on a certain axis, his basic assumption of quanta with 'no structure apart from spin +1/-1' can be advanced. We've been a bit dim witted not allowing it to do so, as that's when all the answers emerge, as my latest essay.

Copenhagen is still the most popular interpretation, but with only 50% support (latest poll of Qphys theorists) with 5 others in the frame! In fact it appears SR can live in Copenhagen quite happily when reduced to Einsten's version "entirely contained within the postulates"(1952). Only the odd tiny different and well falsified assumption is needed!

But somehow this appears invisible to most. Actully not invisible, as when described it can be seen as logical, so my last 3 essays have performed excellently. But by the next day it's drifted away as there's nowhere in most neural networks to hook it onto and retain it. It can be reduced to 'sound bites' but too many to remember are needed to make the solid ontology. It needs a video or two, which needs funding! If you have any other ideas do let me know.

Best wishes.

Peter

Peter Jackson

Pete, I just received and downloaded the charts, thanks they look neatly constructed and give a good start point. Not surprisingly, in hind-sight, I've found good introduction instruction on near and far field phenomenon in the category of 'diffraction' rather than refraction. Very provocative! That is the 'zone' that needs clear distinction in the seeming paradoxisms that arise in Special Relativity, after all that is where the light wave-train originates. I dare say there are many such as I who have (had) no clue of it's existence in the contemplation of electro-magnetic phenomenon. I'm grateful.

On another note, several days ago you and Tom had an exchange which I came to realize was in a way similar to that loss of distinction. Tom had not long ago dragged me kicking and screaming to confront what is doubtless a common assumption that GR is a greater elaboration of SR (much obliged, T), and your citing a comment of mine brought it into focus. While SR is also geometry, it is a projection enabling the transformation of one set of co-ordinates in one reference frame to a corresponding set in another. But that grants great latitude, some would argue too much. General Relativity grants none! You can only apply the criteria you already have established to the theory model, it transforms nothing, and projects nothing except a meaningful picture. It is simply and highly intuitive maths built onto each other, like the tensor itself being a simple way to treat a differential. And I think this distinction is very necessary in your model, not at the transition zone, but in the immediate metamorphic of the waveform ballooning out of the electron, or atomic mass volume. The confusion of non relational field intensities in that first half wavelength before the waveform has its own coherence and is still in instantaneous cohesion with the emitter energy soup, must somehow relate to the 'elapsed time on a curve' in GR. Also it must be a clue towards GR developing a set of terms to relate to a 'particle' size mass. But that is admittedly an uneducated hunch. I'm now curious as to how your model comes to expanding the angle of incidence into the angle of refraction. Thanks, again, jrc

Tom,

"I'm curious to know that since you think Joy Christian has disproved Bell's theorem, how that disproof survives without relativity. How do you think the experimental framework works if it is not performed " ... on either space or time"?"

Relativity type effects survive without relativity theory. I felt that it was not a helpful idea to argue against relativity theory within the context of Joy's work. All I will say, by way of avoiding being a distraction while Joy has his hands full, is that the high quality of your own messages about Joy's work helped me in my decision. I think that Joy speaks very well on his own behalf, but yours and Fred's messages definitely help a lot.

No I do not think that experiments have ever been performed on either space or time because all experiments have been performed on objects that are not space or time. Theory is what the theorist thinks is their best guess for how to fill in for the unknown. That practice is unempirical. So, it is not important to Joy's work whether or not I agree with relativity theory. The models are designed to fit the patterns in empirical evidence. What has great value in one model has a very good chance of having great value in another model. I remove theory from physics equations in order to be free of guessing game models. But, I do know that Joy's work fits patterns in empirical evidence. Any competent theory would. I think Joy's model is as competent as models get. It doesn't matter what I think about physics theory. This evaluation is about Joy's success within that which currently defines theoretical physics. I am not a physicist. Why would I bother Joy with my corrections to physics theory? I have many others whom I can bother who are not busy doing anything more than repeating that which they have been taught to repeat.

James Putnam

Tom,

Thinking after my latest message that maybe you still will not understand something about why I can praise your messages about Joy's work and yet decline vigorously your other attempts to explain physics theory. It is because within theory, I find you to be exceptional. Outside of theory, as demonstrated by your careless irresponsible portrayal of my work based upon your glimpse of my website, I find you to be like a loose cannon. The damage rate exceeds anything of worth. I decided it was fairer to you to say this quickly before you might respond with a potential "Thank you James" message. I would be appreciative of a message concerning what I say that does not expose your insufficient knowledge and would instead get to the real points. How about the fact that I say mass is an indefinable property. I know you claim it to be defined. I also know it is not defined. How do you say it is defined? Put your position up for consideration. I look forward too direction from you.

James Putnam

Peter,

I do not claim expertise in the physics of optics. This may explain why certain ideas you profess sometimes stick and sometimes get unstuck.

We seem to have reached a consensus that gravity slows down light transit time, whether by General relativity or by any other mechanism that may be proposed. Following the exchanges here, I have gone ahead to correct for this weak influence, such that while velocity of light determined in our earth-based laboratory is 299792458m/s, the velocity of light in actually free space, uncontaminated and unslowed by earth's gravity is 299792458.2087m/s. It is this that can be rightly labelled a universal constant, if there is a need for such a label. Admittedly, a tiny correction but over astronomical distances there can be significant consequences. I hope to write a paper on this soon and I have the exchanges here to thank for the insight.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thanks, James. :-)

I don't consider it an insult to be called a good theorist.

Experimental results or other empirical observations don't exist in any other framework than theory, if they are part of science.

Where we differ fundamentally, James, is that it's not just theory you reject. By denying that theory is essential to a scientific judgment, you also reject the correspondence theory of truth, and therefore reject objective knowledge itself. What I mean is, though you may be correct in all you write about physics, you will never have a way to show that you are INcorrect. Without that element, there is no way to distinguish science from religion or philosophy. Is that what you really want?

If you think it's careless and irresponsible of me to criticize your work by this standard, then what standard would you like me to use?

If you say I'm not getting the "real points," understand that points of data are not real to me unless accompanied by a theoretical explanation. That's what realism means -- correspondence between elements of language (theory) and elements of nature (phenomena).

Your real point -- "mass is an indefinable property" -- ignores the fact that definitions are always taken in terms of other definitions; i.e., E = mc^2 does define mass in terms of energy.

When you say that there is no language that can define mass, you imply that E = mc^2 is untrue and therefore special relativity is untrue. Your claim that relativity survives without theory is not supported -- the phenomena has to correspond to the language, and the language is primary. If you really believe that relativity is falsified, you should work on a competing theory that incorporates all the phenomena that special relativity explains, rather than declaring that any theory is worthless to describe physical phenomena. That is, if you don't want to wear the label, "anti-science."

I've gotten a reputation around here for being overly stubborn in defense of rationalism and realism, though I don't deny -- as you say -- having "insufficient knowledge" to evaluate anti-rationalist and anti-realist philosophies. I even separate the two -- I can tolerate arguing with anti-realism; there's prodigious literature in quantum theory espousing that view. Anti-rationalist, though, is against the very idea of science as a rationalist enterprise.

James, if you accept that scientific method contributes any value to objective knowledge, accept that theory is essential. If you want to reject objective knowledge altogether, it's unlikely to attract my personal interest, though there are plenty of schools of philosophy and religion that embrace that idea.

None of this should prevent us from being friends and enjoying the benefits of life experiences we mutually enjoy. Not everything is science.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

"Experimental results or other empirical observations don't exist in any other framework than theory, if they are part of science."

The experiments upon which f=ma was modeled were not conducted within a theoretical framework. Theory is what was forced onto mass afterwards. From that point on physics was converted into the source for theoretical interpretations of empirical evidence. The empirical evidence does not require theory for its meaning. It arrives with its meaning intact. That meaning is lost immediately because the equations used to model the patterns observed in empirical evidence were forged to represent theorists guesses.

"Where we differ fundamentally, James, is that it's not just theory you reject. By denying that theory is essential to a scientific judgment, you also reject the correspondence theory of truth, and therefore reject objective knowledge itself. What I mean is, though you may be correct in all you write about physics, you will never have a way to show that you are INcorrect. Without that element, there is no way to distinguish science from religion or philosophy. Is that what you really want?

I return physics equations to their empirical forms. They tell us what they may. Whether or not I explain them correctly is not important. What is important is that physicists get to see them free of their theory. The equations represent the patterns observed in empirical evidence. That is the correspondence that matters. No experiments have ever been performed on either space or time. For that reason relativity theory is proven to be only a theoretical artifact. The relativity type effects need to be represented by equations in their empirical forms. That work is done. Physics should not be about theory. It should be about what the patterns observed in empirical evidence tells us on their own.

"If you think it's careless and irresponsible of me to criticize your work by this standard, then what standard would you like me to use?"

You weren't criticizing my work! I had to spend my time writing messages to keep pointing out to people that you clearly had no understanding of what it is that I have done. Your usual pursuit of perfection when discussing theory was totally abandoned. You might as well have been picking up mud balls and throwing them against a wall. You certainly were not criticizing my work.

"If you say I'm not getting the "real points," understand that points of data are not real to me unless accompanied by a theoretical explanation. That's what realism means -- correspondence between elements of language (theory) and elements of nature (phenomena)."

"The points of data upon which f=ma is modeled give you no justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property. Here again, it is frustrating that you can be so good with higher level theory and be so unaware of the details of fundamental theory.

"Your real point -- "mass is an indefinable property" -- ignores the fact that definitions are always taken in terms of other definitions; i.e., E = mc^2 does define mass in terms of energy."

This is a clear example of my statement immediately above. Mass was not defined in terms of other definitions. It is clearly inappropriate to claim that it is defined by a property that is defined using mass. This circular reasoning may be useful for theorists but it cannot be argued that mass is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It wasn't and still isn't. My argument has nothing to do with e=mc^2. That comes afterward. My argument is that mass must be defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence. My further argument is that all properties must be defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. Theorists chose to not define mass. Circular reasoning can never make that error right.

"When you say that there is no language that can define mass, you imply that E = mc^2 is untrue and therefore special relativity is untrue. Your claim that relativity survives without theory is not supported -- the phenomena has to correspond to the language, and the language is primary. If you really believe that relativity is falsified, you should work on a competing theory that incorporates all the phenomena that special relativity explains, rather than declaring that any theory is worthless to describe physical phenomena. That is, if you don't want to wear the label, "anti-science.""

This paragraph makes it clear that you still have no understanding of what I do or have done. You definitely are not aware of the work that exists at my website. The equations you ask for have been there since 2001.

"I've gotten a reputation around here for being overly stubborn in defense of rationalism and realism, though I don't deny -- as you say -- having "insufficient knowledge" to evaluate anti-rationalist and anti-realist philosophies. I even separate the two -- I can tolerate arguing with anti-realism; there's prodigious literature in quantum theory espousing that view. Anti-rationalist, though, is against the very idea of science as a rationalist enterprise."

Just because you belong to a group who have adopted the word rationalist in their chosen name doesn't make me irrational. Empirical evidence is realism. Theory consists of guesses about the unknown.

"James, if you accept that scientific method contributes any value to objective knowledge, accept that theory is essential. If you want to reject objective knowledge altogether, it's unlikely to attract my personal interest, though there are plenty of schools of philosophy and religion that embrace that idea."

Correspondence between theory and evidence is almost automatic by design. Empirical evidence cannot prove that which is an empirically unjustified invention. It is ironic that that through theory physics has been made philosophical. That is not what I do.

James Putnam

JC.

The failure of Maxwell's equations to recover Snell's Law at the Near/Far field transition zone (TZ) is a skeleton in the cupboard swept under the carpet with all the other anomalies. As I've said before, we now need a new Sherpa Tenzing to guide us across the carpet, and no-one's managed it yet!

As Neil Turok believes about the failure of theorists, including theoretical physicists at the LHC; "The reason why they failed is that they didn't introduce NEW ENOUGH concepts." But all are to blame. I sent Neil (and most others) a note pointing to where the solution seemed to lie, but not even a response! Clearly too much background noise, so the answer, though right before our eyes, is still hidden by beliefs and assumptions, buried in a pile of assumed crackpottery and an Alpha-Lyman forest of mixed metaphors!

Once you understand the matrix chart the whole simple picture should clarify. The quantum mechanism that gives GR and implements SR, all at the TZ, which them forms the domain boundaries, with the LT (gamma) as a simple quantum by-product.

I won't post the whole commentary, but the Fig caption is here to help with the 3 different observer cases; In each case only the observer in the propagation frame finds REAL c. Other speeds are in a different class, and arbitrary 'apparent' not propagations speeds (like the cars coming the other way down the road). They only become 'real' speeds once interacting.

"Frame Transition Effects of the Discrete Field Model. Observer O1 is in the incident or 'local background' frame. Observer O2 is at rest in any other frame in relative motion. 'O1+2' represents an observer accelerating from frame 1 to frame 2 with the EM signal (equivalent to our consideration of Doppler shift).

Let me know how you get on. (If anyone else would like the (DFM) matrix please just ask).

Peter

Akinbo,

A shortcut is that air ~n=1.0003, and plasma n=1, which is important because, as we now, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum. (This is well understood in optics so you should ensure you're not re-inventing a cartwheel when F1 wheels abound in F1). Turok referred to the importance of this in his speech, as well as saying the reason theorists have failed is; "that they didn't introduce new enough concepts." So the discrete field dynamics 'key' still sits there with giant fingers pointing at it, but just beyond their vision.

I'd be very happy if you wish to refer to and cite the published HJnl PJ/Minkowski optics paper in your own paper (or even the essays). The important thing is to identify that in the DFM the QV can have local assigned 'states of motion' as reference datums for those relative 'speeds' (in variance to the SR 'interpretive assumptions' but not to the postulates). If you're interested in any collaborative input just ask.

See also my post to JC today below.

Best wishes

Peter

Hi James,

"The empirical evidence does not require theory for its meaning. It arrives with its meaning intact."

Please describe how one assigns objective meaning to a phenonmenon in the absence of a theory which incorporates it -- and how one knows that the meaning is objective.

"The equations represent the patterns observed in empirical evidence. That is the correspondence that matters."

It's also what theory IS. Mathematical equations are the objective language whose physical meaning is tested against empirical evidence.

"I had to spend my time writing messages to keep pointing out to people that you clearly had no understanding of what it is that I have done."

Well James, who does? -- and what could they say to you that would convince you that they do understand?

"Mass was not defined in terms of other definitions."

This statement is easily shown false: Newton defined mass in terms of acceleration; Einstein extended the definition in terms of energy.

"Just because you belong to a group who have adopted the word rationalist in their chosen name doesn't make me irrational."

Anti-rationalist is not equivalent to irrational.

"Empirical evidence is realism. Theory consists of guesses about the unknown."

Wrong on the first statement. Right on the second. Realism is measured correspondence between the guess and the evidence.

"Correspondence between theory and evidence is almost automatic by design."

No it isn't. If it were, we would do physics according to Aristotle.

James, I don't think you can make much progress convincing anyone that your ideas are viable until you can answer the first challenge above: 'Please describe how one assigns objective meaning to a phenonmenon in the absence of a theory which incorporates it -- and how one knows that the meaning is objective.'

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Ok, there is no way for me to get through to you. Without theory you are lost. I don't go in circles so you can have the last word concerning this:

Me: "Mass was not defined in terms of other definitions."

You: "This statement is easily shown false: Newton defined mass in terms of acceleration; Einstein extended the definition in terms of energy."

Your response shows that you lack an understanding about the basics of physics. Newton did not define mass in terms of acceleration! Einstein never defined mass! You have no understanding yet of the difference between defined properties and indefinable properties.

For anyone else who might be reading this: The point that I make about mass being a fundamentally indefinable property is right out of introductory physics texts. There have been four fundamentally indefinable properties from the early years of physics. They remain undefined to this day. They are distance, time, mass, and temperature. Only two of these are naturally indefinable. They are distance and time. They are naturally indefinable because they are the properties of empirical evidence. They are the first properties of physics. There are no properties existing before them. A defined property is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. There is nothing pre-existing distance and time by which they may be made defined properties. The two properties of mass and temperature were chosen to be declared indefinable properties out of lack of understanding of how to define them. In other words, physicists do not know how to define either mass or temperature. Neither kilograms nor degrees are defined in terms of pre-existing units.

Please do not pay attention to Tom as a source concerning anything about my work. He has no inkling of what I do. Here is what I do:

I define both mass and temperature in terms of the pre-existing properties of their empirical evidence. In the case of mass, that act removes theory completely from the equation f=ma. All properties of mechanics have always been definable in terms of mass, distance and time. The removal of theory from f=ma, therefore, leads to the removal of theory from all of mechanics. I also define temperature in terms of the properties of its empirical evidence. This act removes theory from thermodynamics. The equations of physics are all returned to their uncorrupted empirical forms. In that state, we are finally able to learn that which empirical evidence is capable of communicating to us free of human interference. My work consists of reproducing the equations of physics in their empirical forms freed from the theorists inventions and guesses. This work includes having done this for the Lorentz Transforms as well as Maxwell's equations, Clausius' thermodynamic entropy, and more, etc.

James Putnam