Alternative Models of Reality

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

"Without theory you are lost."

What you seem incapable of comprehending, James, is that so are you.

"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!"

I'm not a physicist, so you could be right. As a mathematician, I certainly know what a "definition" is. And so did Newton and Einstein when they wrote their equations.

"You have no understanding yet of the difference between defined properties and indefinable properties."

Perhaps. I do have an understanding, though, that "indefinable properties" have nothing to do with physics, and one doesn't have to a physicist to get that.

"My work consists of reproducing the equations of physics in their empirical forms freed from the theorists inventions and guesses."

I repeat -- if one could do that, we would be doing physics according to Aristotle. Do you understand what I mean by that?

Best,

Tom

Pete,

Real quick because I've got things stacking up. Thanks for the pointer in assimilating the matrix, I need to get my head wrapped tightly on Observer 2 then I'll be able to follow. That's the thing about the Galilean revolution in providing theory construct with a common path which when followed, leads to a conclusion which can be rationally understood in a like manner whether everyone agrees or not. Personally, I've got a lot of 'homework' to catch up on. jrc

Tom,

Me: "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: "I'm not a physicist, so you could be right. As a mathematician, I certainly know what a "definition" is. And so did Newton and Einstein when they wrote their equations."

Newton did not define mass in terms of acceleration. Newton did not define mass at all. Einstein never defined mass.

As a theorist you have to know your basics. The first intervention of theory into a physics equation was the choice to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property. The rest of theory stands on top of this foundation. That foundation is not empirically justified. What I mean by this is that there was nothing in empirical evidence that justified that choice. It was done out of ignorance. Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass. This is not my opinion, it is historical fact.

What is my opinion is that mass and force are both definable properties. They have to be or we leave empirical understanding behind and adopt the illusionary world of theoretical physics. I have defined them. My work recaptures empirical understanding.

I understand that you do not understand that this is possible. However, what you do need to understand is that as talented as you are with high level theory, you have to be aware of your vulnerabilities. It is not acceptable that someone like myself needs to inform you that Newton did not define mass. Theoretical physics depends upon the use of an undefined property called mass.

Now for more of my opinion: The lack of a definition for mass is the Achilles heel of theoretical physics. I have done the work supporting this claim at the level of fundamental physics. That is what you do not know exists at my website.

Switching subjects, the message I referred to that ended with the words "informed opinion" must have been deleted. I posted a message in response to your messages that went off topic in Joy's forum. I discussed it with Joy. I assume that it makes sense that you were a journalist. You said it not me. The rest followed. Anyway, I don't find any of those messages so forget it.

James Putnam

"Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass. This is not my opinion, it is historical fact."

Just where would I find this fact recorded in the annals of history?

" Switching subjects, the message I referred to that ended with the words "informed opinion" must have been deleted. I posted a message in response to your messages that went off topic in Joy's forum. I discussed it with Joy. I assume that it makes sense that you were a journalist. You said it not me. The rest followed. Anyway, I don't find any of those messages so forget it."

James, have you given any thought to the fact that you often drop innuendo, and then say forget it?

Tom

Tom,

"James, have you given any thought to the fact that you often drop innuendo, and then say forget it?"

Are you claiming that you wrote no such messages? The subject matter included your past as a journalist, how you were invited to testify before congress or wherever.

My forget it phrase has to do with recognizing the sometimes no progress can be made within any reasonable effort.

An example is this: Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass. I have referenced this for you long ago in a physics text by Zemansky. How many times does it need to be repeated that physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration. Their choice could have been either force or mass. They arbitrarily chose mass. How could you not know this? Why does it have to be repeated over and over when it is common knowledge included in introductory physics texts. You wonder why I reach the point of saying forget it? Our conversations with each other started years ago with this very topic. You still challenge it as if it is some invention of mine. So, lets forget it! I will of course continue to say it. Let us forget my trying to inform you of it.

James Putnam

"'James, have you given any thought to the fact that you often drop innuendo, and then say forget it?'"

"Are you claiming that you wrote no such messages?"

James, I didn't make any claims -- you did. Have you ever heard of the 'When did you stop beating your wife' fallacy? Do you think it's fair?

Tom

"How many times does it need to be repeated that physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration."

Since the statement contradicts your claims, it hardly need be said even once, much less repeated.

Tom

Tom,

"Since the statement contradicts your claims, it hardly need be said even once, much less repeated."

Forget criticizing what you do not understand. The question is do you understand that: Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration?

when you finally acknowledge that this is correct, then, go through your struggle to understand that it does not contradict my claims. If you do not have the interest then that is a good reason for you to forget it. These circles you draw waste both of our times. Your time is valuably spent discussing Joy's work.

For anyone reading this other than Tom, It is historically and currently correct to state that physicists never defined mass. I do not contradict this statement when I say that I have defined mass. Period!

James Putnam

Examples of this effect;

Chasing the black holes of the ocean

"According to researchers from ETH Zurich and the University of Miami, some of the largest ocean eddies on Earth are mathematically equivalent to the mysterious black holes of space. These eddies are so tightly shielded by circular water paths that nothing caught up in them escapes."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-black-holes-ocean.html#jCp

Dating our galaxy's dormant volcano

""It's been long suspected that our galactic center might have sporadically flared up in the past. These observations are a highly suggestive 'smoking gun'," said Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, who was one of the first people to suggest that black holes generate the power seen coming from quasars and galaxies with 'active' centers."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-dating-galaxy-dormant-volcano.html#jCp

James,

Despite your perceptions, I am not here to discredit your work. If you'll notice, I treat everyone the same way with the questions I ask. My question to you is not esoteric or ambiguous:

If yours is an objective idea, by what means can you show that you (or anyone) knows that it is objective?

I appreciate that you think my argument over definitions is circular; however, all definitions *are* circular, i.e., self-referential. That Newton defined mass in terms of inertia and Einstein extended the definition to energy makes their definitions operational rather than mathematically formal, which is only consistent with *all* definitions for physical phenomena.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that certain physical phenomena are undefined in physics while claiming that your own physics defines them. You aren't helping me (or yourself) by refusing to provide a framework in which to understand, and even further providing no references. If it's true that "Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration ..." then who said it, what did they mean by "indefinable," and what is lacking in the operational definitions that would be corrected by some other -- unknown and unstated -- means of "defining?" And then -- in what way would physics change if one accepted this premise? Yes, I know that you've said "theory would be removed" yet theorizing is itself a process of defining, so how does your proposed non-theory differ from theory?

Since you've mentioned my appreciation of Joy's research, then let me reinforce my statement that I treat everyone the same way. I still cringe at the word "disproof" for reasons of mathematical logic: like your "non-theory" that is apparently identical to "theory," a purported disproof can only be identical to a proof that disproves itself. I came to understand that I can live with this in the context of Joy's framework, because all the mathematical proofs of Bell's theorem are nonconstructive; they prove what they assume. So even though I still don't like the word, I know what it means in that context.

I would be your biggest defender if you supplied a self-consistent framework by which your claims could be deduced. Even if you said it wasn't a theory.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"I appreciate that you think my argument over definitions is circular; however, all definitions *are* circular, i.e., self-referential. That Newton defined mass in terms of inertia and Einstein extended the definition to energy makes their definitions operational rather than mathematically formal, which is only consistent with *all* definitions for physical phenomena.

I'm trying to understand how you can say that certain physical phenomena are undefined in physics while claiming that your own physics defines them. You aren't helping me (or yourself) by refusing to provide a framework in which to understand, and even further providing no references. If it's true that "Physicists did not know how to define either force or mass, and, their solution was to make mass a fundamentally indefinable property, letting force then be defined in terms of mass and acceleration ..." then who said it, what did they mean by "indefinable," and what is lacking in the operational definitions that would be corrected by some other -- unknown and unstated -- means of "defining?" And then -- in what way would physics change if one accepted this premise? Yes, I know that you've said "theory would be removed" yet theorizing is itself a process of defining, so how does your proposed non-theory differ from theory?"

I have given a reference and even quoted it. I have explained what must be done and why. I have explained what happens to properties and their units. I have explained how the equations of physics change. I have done this for years in messages and in essays. Ok, I understand that a theoretical physicist might glimpse at something I right and quickly dismiss it as obviously wrong. So, it is reasonable to assume that almost no one here yet understands what I mean when I differentiate between equations in their theoretical forms and their empirical forms. So I will let the criticisms you give above pass as an understandable misunderstanding.

Beginning at the beginning. I quote from College Physics, Sears and Zemansky, 1960, 3rd ed., Chapter 1, Page 1:

"1-1 The fundamental indefinable of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, what ever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass' and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinable of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinable. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinable are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition.

1-2 Standards and units. The measurement of any indefinable of physics involves the application of a simple set of rules. Instead of referring to these rules in the abstract, let us employ them in connection with the quantity "length." The first step is to choose an arbitrary standard of length, in the form of an inanimate, solid, durable material. The international standard of length is... A standard is arbitrary, and its virtue lies in the fact that all the scientists of the world accept it. ..."

I have this book as a reference because I bought it used off of the internet. I chose it because the author states the case clearly. My impression from reading is that modern texts tend to give weaker introductions. I will wait and see if this message is understood. Lest any reader think that this is too trivial to ponder about, it represents the first error of theoretical physics.

James Putnam

I can't edit my message so I point out that in the quote I gave, the repeated missing s on indefinable is my error.

From Sears & Zemansky "A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured."

Yes, James. That's what I told you -- physical definitions are always operational, never formal. The "set of rules for calculating" is formal, and it's called a theory.

Best,

Tom

JC,

I replied about curved space-time derivation from discrete fields which you asked about above; ("I'm now curious as to how your model comes to expanding the angle of incidence into the angle of refraction"). I'd lost this, so I think it's in the Q&A string, but briefly (for the static case, or see my last years essay);

As this years essay; the toroidal electrons/ions (which I remind you are twin vortices John M) have an 'orientation' wrt the EM field they're part of. Approaching 'wave' or photon (all just 3D fluctuations) energy is far lower magnitude than the particle. Different particles harmonise and couple with with different wavelengths (see the graphs, they do overlap a bit).

If the ions are pure and fresh (fermion conjugate electron/positron pairs condense and annihilate almost instantly in shocks) there is no delay (as n=1, or in fact plasma ~0.999998). But as the particle is providing the impetus for propagation (photons may otherwise tire and slow after a few billion yrs) the orientation of the torus DOES have a slight effect on the re-emission axis, rotating it imperceptibly towards the 'field lines'.

Except that where there are a lot of these ('massive') particles the effect can be seem as an apparent path curvature. But is is not a 'vector', a 'path' or a 'curvature' but a rotation. This is proved in the diagrams of my "Much Ado.." essay, showing how in the model the optical axis (apparent source position) is rotated AWAY FROM the causal wavefront!! This is the key to invisibility optics. We've assumed we 'observe' a source normal to the wavefront. Arrays and optics shows up we do NOT! This is anomalous to current doctrine but implicit in nature (DFM). Interstellar Faraday rotation of polarity is a directly related implicit effect, as is elliptical polarity, the Kerr effects etc...

The kinetic effect of deep space plasma refraction just found by the VLBArray (link above somewhere) is the precise affect of 'charge asymmetry' predicted in last years essay. So essentially this is quantum gravity, along with the other effects I listed in the Q&A post. Does that start to make sense now?

Best wishes

Peter