Alternative Models of Reality

James Putnam

Tom,

"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."

You have to understand right from the beginning that measuring distance and time does not involve theory. Measuring mass does not involve theory. It is the choice to make mass an indefinable property that is theoretical. Lets stay on this point until the difference is made clear. The empirical evidence of acceleration is not theoretical. The measurement process of acceleration is not theoretical. The standard for mass is not theoretical. Instead of saying you told me so, please address this question: What is the justification for making mass a fundamental indefinable property? This is where we will find out what your interest really is. Stay with the reason for not defining mass. We can move on after this first step is dealt with.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"You have to understand right from the beginning that measuring distance and time does not involve theory."

It most certainly does, James. I suppose you mean by this, that general relativity would be falsfied because Minkowski space does not consider space and time as independently real physical quantities, like the absolute space and absolute time of Newtonian physics. In fact, though, even Newtonian space is incorporated into a theory of measurement described by Euclidean geometry. And Newtonian time is taken from Galileo's concept of the rate of change of a trajectory, for which Newton invented the calculus to accommodate the rate of change of the rate of change (rate of change squared) inherent in gravitational acceleration. Because Newton stood by the philosophy that "time flows equably" throughout the universe, he did not generalize the relation of time to space, which had to wait for Minkowski and Einstein.

"Measuring mass does not involve theory. It is the choice to make mass an indefinable property that is theoretical."

No. Every mass measurement standard is accompanied by a theory -- and has to be -- because of the demonstrated equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass. *Even if* mass were simply an absolute and unchanging quantity, i.e., if a kilogram on Earth weighed the same as a kilogram on the moon, so that the inertial masses were identical, one would need a theory to explain why the differing gravitational masses attracted the kilogram-mass at the same rate (though of course, this doesn't happen).

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

We are discussing the beginning of physics. There is nothing but the observation that objects change their velocities. We are interested in why and how they do this. I asked you to stick with the decision to make mass a fundamental indefinable property. The question was: What is the justification for making mass an indefinable property? If you do not understand the importance of this or if you do not see it as important then let me know. But it is not getting skipped over. The discussion can end here but this point is not getting skipped over.

James Putnam

pjackson

John,

Great AGN jet link! A paper I have in review predicts just that, except with evidence the 'eruption' was more severe then they assume, and 6Bn years ago not 2.

You characterisation of the ideas here was very personal, but the vortices agreeing with my prev 2 papers. However, from where I sit there's no; "opposing factions pulling on the inevitable loose ends of each other's models and going around in circles" at all! If only! The DFM is presented here to be scientifically falsified. It's had none! Only verification. It seems rock solid if not fully polished, which I suppose is good. It's just had questions (and one entirely 'belief' based objection with no objective science - from guess who!).

There are a number of people going round in circles slowly getting closer to understanding it. Akimbo and JC are closest. With respect John you've been circling for far longer with very slow progress as your focus has been fixated elsewhere. I look at all other 'theories'. They're nothing like as complete or solidly evidenced, but have interesting aspects and consistencies. I commented on 'hidden likeness' with your time view long ago, but that seems to to produce far less (O?) tangible resolutions of anomalies.

I couldn't decypher your last line. I sounds very similar to the concepts in my last essay but a bit woollier, to me anyway. Can you be more specific?

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"The question was: What is the justification for making mass an indefinable property?"

James, the only way to answer this is with another question, "What makes you think that mass *is* indefinable?"

If it weren't defined operationally, we could not even *speak* of a quantity called "mass." If it were not not defined formally, we could not predict its value. And when you say that the significance of gravity is only a mechanism by which "objects change their velocities," you even deny that gravity is a relation between m and M. Seriously, do you think that makes sense? Certainly not to classical physics.

Do you want to discard classical physics altogether as "the beginning of physics"?

Best,

Tom

marcovici alexandru

when learning a new sport like skateboarding you don't jump straightforward to do the hardest trick you start out with simple ones

the shape of economy (of a country) is a a reflection of the personality of its inhabitants
to explain better the only forward comparison marcovici alexandru

in inline skates there's is this presence all over the the surface
if all people would be skaters it will be seeable in the economy

would be like me commenting on 324 Thomas Ray post from 2013

Thomas Ray

scientist barely understand what mass inertia gravity is and society jumped in to use it at all scales buildings cars heavy duty machinery

anyway
lets sound more scientific ; large scale automorphism groups
how very large numbers are presently poorly being accessed with no inbetweeners

ShockwaveRider make time come to a complete stop

after more than 2 years of using this laptop where i type my comments i have only discovered ten minutes ago that the touch pad has the clickable part on the bottom half only , and not on the right

intuitive interfaces ...

forward backward and sideways movements
↖️ ⬆️ ↗️
⬅️ ❎ ➡️
↙️ ⬇️ ↘️
the octopus squid- water, crab spider- earth , hummingbird-air 🐙 🦀 🕷️ 🦑
is there any other mammal that can do this presence all over the field thing ?

beside us humans and the little the primates 🐒

in cities 🏙️ there is a tendencies for humans to loose this ability and look only forward.

the chameleon can look 👀 backwards 🦎 still moves only (mostly) frontally [en] nach vorne [de] inoltrare [it] vooruit [nl] előre [hu] вперед [ru] adelante [es] fram [se]

James Putnam

Tom,

"James, the only way to answer this is with another question, "What makes you think that mass *is* indefinable?""

Mass is a fundamental indefinable property as explained in message number one. The empirical evidence is changes of velocities of objects due to force. There is nothing else to deal with yet. We observe from the patterns in changes of velocities of objects that each object has its own measure of resistance to force. We don't know why yet. We call it mass. We accept from Newton that the patterns of changes of velocities of objects can be modeled with the equation f=ma. Now we have to determine how to define force and mass. It was decided to accept mass without a definition making it a fundamental indefinable property joining the status of length and time. What is the justification for making mass a fundamental indefinable property?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The empirical evidence is changes of velocities of objects due to force."

No it isn't. Gravitational acceleration is shown to be due to the curvature of spacetime, not force.

James Putnam

Tom,

"No it isn't. Gravitational acceleration is shown to be due to the curvature of spacetime, not force."

We are discussing the beginning of physics. Newton shows us f=ma. He explains to us that f is force and m is resistance to force called mass. In order to use the equation length, time, force, and mass need units. The units for length and time are accepted as being naturally indefinable. We need units for force and mass. It was not clear how to define units for both force and mass. It was decided, and remains the case today, that the units for mass would themselves be also indefinable. The units for force were then defined in terms of the units for length, time, and mass. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?"

Mathematical consistency and coherence.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

""What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?""

"Mathematical consistency and coherence"

They could have had that with a defined unit. The question is not answered.

!. What is the justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property?

2. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

If you are not interested just say so. A third question.

3. What defines a defined unit?

I already know all this. You either want to learn it or not. I am not talking about my ideas, I am talking about the fundamentals of the physics that you are supposed to know. It is a waste of time for you to try to sidetrack it. The decision concerning mass concerns the rest of theory including that which you defend so well today. I await either direct answers to the questions or your request to end this.

James Putnam

Completing my message myself:

!. What is the justification for making mass a fundamentally indefinable property?

In order to make f=ma practically useful there have to be units for force and mass. The units for either property cannot be defined by solving the equation for that property. It appears that we do not receive guidance from the empirical evidence on how to proceed. That lack of direction is interpreted to mean that either force or mass must be a fundamentally indefinable property. The logic would follow like this: We can't solve for a definition for either length or time. They must be fundamentally indefinable properties. We can't solve for a definition for either force or mass. The conclusion is that one of them must be a fundamentally indefinable unit. This reasoning appears to be consistent. The result is that once mass in made a fundamentally indefinable property f=ma becomes practically useful. This result justifiesy the decision.

2. What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?

Since properties are represented in equations by their units, the argument is analogous to that given above.

3. What defines a defined unit?

A defined unit is one that can be fully described in terms of pre-existing units.

A follow-up question is: Practical utility of f=ma is gained, what is lost?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Tom,

'What is the justification for making the units of mass fundamentally indefinable?'

'Mathematical consistency and coherence'

They could have had that with a defined unit. The question is not answered."

And it works also with undefined units -- so the question is answered. James, equations are solved for numbers, not "properties." The only way that we know that physical properties correspond to the numbers is by the outcome of experiments that the numbers predict, therefore turning one set of numbers into another (which is called a function) -- how? In theory.

Science pared to essentials is nothing more than theory and result.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

You didn't answer the question. We solve equations for numbers and units. The equations may or may not involve theory. In the case of f=ma it begins without theory. The decision to make mass an indefinable property makes the equation theoretical. The theory is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Mass is represented in f=ma by the units of kilograms. The decision to assign the fundamental indefinable units of kilograms is what makes the equation subservient to the theory of the indefinable status of mass.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The decision to make mass an indefinable property makes the equation theoretical."

James, *all* equations are theoretical.

"The theory is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property."

No, it's simply a mathematical relation.

"Mass is represented in f=ma by the units of kilograms. The decision to assign the fundamental indefinable units of kilograms is what makes the equation subservient to the theory of the indefinable status of mass."

What you're fundamentally arguing, James, whether you realize it or not, is that the equivalence principle is false -- i.e, if there exists an absolute unit of what Einstein called "ponderable mass,", a given unit of mass weighs the same on Earth as on the moon. We know that isn't true. Suppose one ignores that fact, though -- and all of classical physics along with it -- and appeals to quantum theory where mass can't be weighed and is measured in electron volts. Then your argument opposes special relativity.

Either way, by special relativity or general relativity, Einstein has all this covered.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

I haven't changed anything yet. Therefore, I am not contradicting anything yet. I am only pointing out that f=ma originates from measurements of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. When it was first written down, it was theory free. It is, up to this point, the work of experimental physics. In order for it to be put to practical use, the properties of force and mass needed units. It is through their units only that those properties are represented in the equation. The experimentalist is faced with the challenge of how to define units for force and mass. When they fail to solve the problem, the theorist becomes involved. Theorist imagine what may be substituted for the unknown. Their substitutions fill in the blanks so that in the case of f=ma, the equation becomes practically useful. However, the unknown remains unknown. The nature of mass is unknown. That is represented in f=ma by the indefinable units of kilograms.

Your repeated references to higher level theory are irrelevant. I am discussing the beginning of physics. There is nothing else yet to be discussed until after f=ma has been interpreted, and, that interpretation is represented by units. Higher level theory will be relevant after all steps leading up to it have been addressed. It been an accepted practice of theoretical physicists to skip over problems where the mathematics exists but the understanding does not exist. Examples are: mass, temperature, and thermodynamic entropy. There are others. However, nothing of physics exists in this discussion other than the discovery of f=ma.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I am only pointing out that f=ma originates from measurements of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. When it was first written down, it was theory free."

James, F = ma *is* a theory. You can call a dog a cat, but it will still be a dog.

"It been an accepted practice of theoretical physicists to skip over problems where the mathematics exists but the understanding does not exist."

Skip over? -- heck, *most* theories are not well understood, and robust theories always contain more than is understood. Von Neumann's advice about mathematical theories: "One does not understand; one gets used to it." Science is discovery, James; it is not understanding.

"Examples are: mass, temperature, and thermodynamic entropy. There are others. However, nothing of physics exists in this discussion other than the discovery of f=ma."

There you go. That's one discovery.

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

F=ma did not begin as a theory. If it is not clear to you yet, empirical evidence and that which it communicates directly to us is not theory. F=ma is communicated directly to us by empirical evidence. What appears to not be communicated to us by that empirical evidence is how to define the units for force and mass. You will recognize when theory enters physics because, guesses will begin to be made about how to substitute for the unknown.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"F=ma is communicated directly to us by empirical evidence."

It is? How?

James Putnam

It may be necessary to re-emphasize that the decision to arbitrarily assign fundamentally indefinable units of kilograms to represent mass in physics equations will not be skipped over. Both force and mass must be correctly represented in f=ma. This discussion is currently at the point of making clear that the decision to assign fundamentally indefinable units to mass was not an empirically supported decision. It was a theoretical decision. In case it needs to be pointed out, it makes a great difference whether both force and mass receive defined units or if one receives indefinable units.

James Putnam

John Cox

Peter A. Jackson

Pete, digesting what you present as an alternative to a standard model in the treatment of phenomenon across a difference in refraction index, it seems to me your argument boils down to something like this. ... Physically, we can not simply take the change of translational speed in one medium to that translational speed in another medium as instantaneous, which is the conventional treatment theoretically. Rather, the transition zone must be treated time-wise as that deceleration of the waveform in a higher refractive index being equivalent to an acceleration of observation from one medial translational speed to the next.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then that would be best to present immediately in concise terms in the first paragraph of any abstract. Just an editorial comment, I grew up in a smalltown weekly newspaper family, It's good practice, ain't it, Tom. Not that the sophists don't always chime in that logical argument is all well and good, but what carries the day in political persuasion is that you tell people what they want to hear, which is neither leadership or representation just a free ride. Ellsberg Lives, just not very well. jrc

« Previous Page Next Page »