Alternative Models of Reality

pjackson

James,

As a simplification yes, arrive c+v, depart c. But the holy grail of the DFM mechanism is hidden within the proper description, which requires a new holistic viewpoint: Remember the concept 'speed' is only relative, it is the 'rate of propagation' of fluctuations, giving us the observable number; 'frequency'.

Let's slow it all down and observe as two 'energy peak' positions arrive in turn at a spinning torus (moving in either direction). Now all the torus 'knows' is that they arrived a certain 'time' apart. i.e. if the wavelength was shorter, it would be the same as if the relative speed before arrival was greater (or less).

Think carefully about that to absorb it. It means 'realtive speed before interaction means nothing, it's not a propagation speed in any way. The re-emission speed is set by the 'rpm' of the (triaxial) toroid spin. THAT is then a 'speed'.

So as I've been trying to expalin for 2 years or so; There are TWO entirely different cases of 'speed', one real (propagation) speed, in which proper time applies, and one only 'apparent' or relative, which will then Doppler shift time signals, so only 'co-ordinate time' can be seen.

So in reality, the answer is strictly NO, unless we group REAL and APPARENT speed together, which is where we go wrong. The oparticle will not experiance two speeds, beause it does not have the infomation on the arriving speed and wavelength. This holy grail also allows Copenhagen and unifies SR and QM (with just a little power curve approaching OB energy density called the LT).

We see apparent speeds all day in everyday life, but you now need to look at them with a very new eye, (which so many here have failed to do); Driving down the road, you and the truck coming the other way are both doing REAL speed 60mph. The fact that the total relative speed is 120mph makes no difference to anything, his clock may 'appear' to go faster without problems. It is only when you INTERACT that things change. One or other of you will have to accelerate into the others inertial frame as you can't propagate at different speeds!. If compressible you will thus be Doppler shifted, otherwise known as 'length contraction', or Lorentz contraction (don't try this at home!)

If you haven't had the 'Eureka!' moment yet think about this tonight as it often takes time to replace deeply hidden assumptions. let me know how you got on.

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

My particle sends off electromagnetic energy at the speed C relative to itself. There is a specific quantity of electromagnetic energy headed your particle's way. It was generated by my particle that was moving toward your particle at velocity v. My particle is part of a medium that is moving with my particle. So I see my electromagnetic energy in the form of a wave moving toward your particle at C v.

The electromagnetic wave encounters your particle and is absorbed. Your particle gains energy from the wave. The energy is directly proportional to the frequency of the wave from the perspective of your particle. Your particle doesn't receive anything else from the wave but its energy based upon the frequency received by your particle. Your particle later emits electromagnetic energy equal to that which it received.

My particle put less energy into the wave than what your particle got out of it. In other words, the frequency of the waveform when my particle released it was less than the frequency of the wave as it was received by your particle. My particle was headed toward your particle with a velocity of v and the Doppler effect made it possible for your particle to collect a larger amount of energy from the wave than my particle put into it.

Now I mention to your particle that it just received electromagnetic energy at a speed greater than C. Your particle reports only that it received energy. Your particle explains that there was no effect that it underwent that could be used to establish the speed of the wave. It further makes clear that all waves that are received seem to vary only in energy content. Finally, your particle argues that it releases all of its electromagnetic energy at the speed C. It has never seen evidence for any speed of an electromagnetic wave other than that C.

I insist to your particle that it received the wave at C v. Your particle advises me to prove it. I think it over and decide that there is nothing about the received wave that I can point to that supports my claim. I let your particle know to expect a new experiment where I send it two new waves.

So I send out two new waves from the same medium moving at two different relative speeds of C v1 and C v2. My particle gives them two different values of energy. I have already told your particle how much those quantities of energy would be and the speeds they will be traveling at from my perspective. The waveforms carry forward the two different quantities of energy. They are both absorbed one after the other by your particle.

Your particle responds that the two quantities of energy were not what I predicted. Furthermore, there was no effect by which your particle detected any difference in velocities. Once more your particle asks me to point to an error that your particle may have made. I can't report an error, after all your particle didn't make a mistake. It gave back an accurate report.

Your particle concludes that all electromagnetic energy that it has released has always left at the speed C. It has never seen evidence for any other speed of light. So, the most it is willing to speculate is that it is reasonable to conclude that the waveforms arrived with velocities of C. Your particle is willing to be corrected, but it wants evidence. I don't have a way of sending it evidence that proves my point. Ok?

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Spot on (almost); A. There is however no energy conservation issue because considering Time; my particle we'll call 'T' or 'Tom' receives the energy yours (we'll call it R or 'Ray') at different wavelengths, but can only compute frequencies, so 'gets the energy quicker', i.e. the energy it took your 1 second to emit arrives in 0.9 secs' Tom will then have more energy 'per second' than Ray emitted.

You can't give Tom any proof apart from logic, so he will, correctly believe all propagation is at c and has no access to anything other than propagation. So there are two DIFFERENT 'kinds' of speed, real and relative, but Tom makes the wrong assumption as he hasn't access to the information he assumes he has, the relative approach speed.

In practice? the DRM solution; If theorists simply use the (relativistic of course) Doppler shift equation for 'wavelength' not the one for 'frequency', as we've found essential in optics and astronomy. All the scores of paradoxes and anomalies evaporate.

Peter

James Putnam

Einstein's Elevator

The following is an analysis where it is assumed that the force of gravity is constant and not decreasing with height. This is done to favor Einstein's elevator example. Quoting myself:

"The example is of a sequestered scientist inside a windowless elevator. The point stressed is that there is no way for the scientist to determine whether he is feeling the effect of gravity or the effect of acceleration. Since the scientist cannot devise a test to determine why he remains standing on the floor, the conclusion is made that gravity and acceleration are the same phenomenon. In other words, if we can't tell the difference then there is no difference.

There is a revealing connection between this example and the importance of first properly understanding force. This connection is: An analysis of force tells us there is a difference between gravity and acceleration. In the case of gravity we know there are two forces at work on the scientist. Gravity exerts a force on him trying to pull him downward. The floor of the room is exerting a second and separate force pushing upward against him. There are two equal but opposite forces at work. These two forces cause compression and distortion.

In the case of acceleration, there is only one force at work on the scientist. This forces is the floor pushing upward against him. Therefore, the difference between the two situations is a difference in the number of forces applied. The fact that the scientist cannot distinguish between the two cases does not prove that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. All he needs is a window to prove they are different.

What we learn is that we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect. In the two cases, the effect felt is not acceleration. It is identical compression and distortion to the scientist's body. Therefore, it is force that is shown to be of a common nature. The equivalence principle belongs to force."

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

We know there's a difference between gravity and acceleration, James. Einstein's result is that gravity and acceleration are *equivalent* physical phenomena.

They are.

Thomas Ray

Another way to demonstrate the fact is through curvilinear acceleration -- artifcial gravity.

James Putnam

The Force of Gravity

Quoting myself:

There is a claim by Einstein that because a person in free fall experiences no sense of being under the influence of a force there is for him no force of gravity. He is merely doing a natural thing as explained by the General Theory of Relativity. In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not need to be explained any more than does the experience of moving at a constant velocity with no resistance.

This claim, if correct, gives gravity a different nature than all other forces. Since gravity actually has the same nature as all other forces then Einstein's claim must be wrong. the error he made was to ascribe something to gravity that belongs to all acceleration. In principle, any body undergoing pure acceleration will feel nothing. The cause of the acceleration is not a factor if the acceleration is pure and complete in its application.

There is something felt during most accelerations so what is it? What is felt is distortion and compression. If a body is pushed on one side only, it will undergo compression. If a body is pushed at one small part only, it will undergo both compression and distortion. We feel the effects of changes of distance between our molecules and atoms. We feel nothing if all particles in our body accelerate in unison. During free fall due to gravity, in the ideal situation of assuming a constant gravitational force, all particles accelerate in unison. Of course we feel nothing. Analogous cases could be made for electrical and magnetic forces.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"During free fall due to gravity, in the ideal situation of assuming a constant gravitational force, all particles accelerate in unison."

No.

Free fall isn't caused by a force called gravity. Free fall is the nonresistance of a body to its motion.

James Putnam

This is apparently not commonly known: "...any body undergoing pure acceleration will feel nothing." It means there is no effect on a body that is subjected to homogenous acceleration regardless of the cause. The object undergoing such acceleration would not know its velocity is changing.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"This is apparently not commonly known: "...any body undergoing pure acceleration will feel nothing." It means there is no effect on a body that is subjected to homogenous acceleration regardless of the cause. The object undergoing such acceleration would not know its velocity is changing."

James, no body knows its velocity is changing except relative to another body.

pjackson

Tom,

"Free fall is the nonresistance of a body to its motion." With respect I submit that description is far from complete or useful.

Consider my discussion with James, which clearly established the import of the underlying logic of 'speed', ergo; 'motion' being an entirely RELATIVE concept. I'm saying that the familiar way we consider motion will simple never allow us to understand nature! SR went most of the way there but then got entangled and embroiled in nonsense. Try this;

A body falling, so relatively 'accelerating' up to a terminal (relative) velocity towards Earth is in it's own rest frame, entirely equivalent to all other rest frames, including that of Earth. It is NOT in an accelerating (non-inertial) frame! It may however be in an observer dependent 'relatively' accelerating frame viewed FROM any arbitrary co-moving (rest) or co-accelerating (non-inertial) observer frame.

But the big difference is between relative motion R and physical interactions P. R and P are two very different cases. They are entirely equivalent to Relative ('co-ordinate') and Proper Time. As discussed with James, this then brings in the new but intuitive distinction between Relative and Proper 'SPEED'. Proper speed is b]Propagation speed. WHICH IS ALWAYS C. Now all can finally make sense, and the postulates are freed of all the apparent paradox.

The car coming the other way at 90 has a 'relative' speed of 180 mph, (before it interacts). But like the photon, it is scattered to a different speed (c in YOUR frame) the moment it hits. Surely only a few very slow troglodytes could cling onto old doctrine against such consistent logic and correspondence with nature!?

But the real advance is in applying that to equivalence; only physical interaction with other matter in a different frame can cause Proper acceleration as opposed to relative acceleration. Einstein was correct, they are 'apparently EQUIVALENT', but James is also correct and one step more precise, they are NOT 'the same'!

The quantum mechanisms can then simply produce both the real and relative effects. This is the heart of the discrete field model (DFM), which is Galilean Relativity with the real local frames Einstein wanted, his limit c, and, as the icing on the cake; the LT. Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation. All in Copenhagen are then also happy. What else is needed?

Peter

Thomas Ray

Hi Peter,

You write, "A body falling, so relatively 'accelerating' up to a terminal (relative) velocity towards Earth is in it's own rest frame, entirely equivalent to all other rest frames," ...

A body can only be at relative rest. That means if it is accelerating in the Earth's gravity field, it is in an accelerated frame relative to the Earth. The body can only be at rest relative to another body traveling at its same velocity. The moon, for example, is in a state of curvilinear acceleration relative to the Earth -- falling toward Earth at a rate sufficient to miss the planet, and falling in a curved trajectory.

I think what you're getting at -- is the case of two bodies free falling in the Earth's gravity field, simultaneously released. One falls straight to Earth's plane, the other in a curved path. The bodies simultaneously contact the Earth's surface. Textbook examples of the projectile problem include:

1. A bullet fired exactly parallel to the Earth's plane with initial velocity significantly less than that required for escape from gravity (as all ordinary bullets are) will contact the ground at the exact moment as a bullet dropped from the same height as the gun's muzzle. This demonstrates that there is no acceleration horizontal to the plane; the vertical acceleration of gravity on the fired projectile is exactly the same as that for the dropped projectile.

2. An unpowered bomb dropped from a plane traveling at a constant speed and continuing on at the same speed after release of the bomb, will be directly over the bomb when it contacts the ground. Again, there is no horizontal acceleration; at all moments, the bomb is directly beneath the plane.

"... including that of Earth. It is NOT in an accelerating (non-inertial) frame! It may however be in an observer dependent 'relatively' accelerating frame viewed FROM any arbitrary co-moving (rest) or co-accelerating (non-inertial) observer frame."

No, it would be at rest relative to the co-moving body in uniform motion, whether constant or sharing the same rate of acceleration. If the other body is accelerating relative to the first, the bodies do not share a rest frame.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Deliberately missing the point? You know when you are accelerated even with your eyes closed. The inhomogeneous push in the back makes you aware of it. Back to the point: The force of gravity is not special among forces because we feel almost nothing in free fall. We feel completely nothing for any homogeneous acceleration regardless of the case. Homogeneous free fall, if it existed, would just be like any other homogeneous acceleration caused by any other force. The force could be gravity or magnetic or electric. I repeat: A body undergoing homogeneous acceleration will not even know its velocity is changing.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James,

(I take it you mean "uniform acceleration" when you say "homogeneous acceleration.")

"I repeat: A body undergoing homogeneous acceleration will not even know its velocity is changing."

And I repeat: *No* body will experience *any* state of motion, or a change in state, except relative to another body.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Tom,

I disagree with James that you're deliberately missing the point. To me it's just that you're making no effort to 'reconsider' anything, just clinging on to the old thinking. Your 'interpretation' was nowhere near the meaning!. Please give us the respect that we do actually KNOW what current assumptions are! And understand that we are not simply repeating those but exposing a new way of looking at things.

How about if we just focus on the body, as James is saying, but consider it as a loose collection of particles.

We then have two fundamental conditions, entirely independently of anything which may or may net be in motion or accelerating nearby. In one case, as Einstein specified the 'body' is in its own INERTIAL rest frame. All inertial rest frames are equivalent as there is no other body or 'force' trying to alter it's state.

The other condition is when it is in some contact with some other BODY, so constituted of MATTER (be it solid or only a diffuse 'wind'), in which case there will be some compression of the bodies particles (or stretching if the action is partly imparted as a 'pull'). This is then the second funamental case, and outlide influence, which promotes Proper ACCELERATION'.

Now all the infinitely many cases of APPARENT Realtive velocity and acceleration you refer to are then exposed as arbitrary and not physically fundamental. Of course for moving observers they are important, but the fundamental truth of a body being either 'at rest' or accelerated' lies within the body NOT with arbitrary moving OTHER bodies.

Can you see that important new insight into nature? If you now re-read my last post it will clarify.

Peter

James Putnam

Tom,

"And I repeat: *No* body will experience *any* state of motion, or a change in state, except relative to another body."

This needs clarification. Is the acceleration of a charged particle due to electric force? Is the acceleration due to gravity caused by the force of gravity? Are they both forces? If one is not a force, why not?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Is the acceleration of a charged particle due to electric force?"

Yes.

"Is the acceleration due to gravity caused by the force of gravity?"

No.

"Are they both forces? If one is not a force, why not?"

Gravity as described by general relativity is a passive, one-way interaction between matter and spacetime. It doesn't "force" anything. Massive bodies do not resist their motion, in the absence of force.

Thomas Ray

"To me it's just that you're making no effort to 'reconsider' anything, just clinging on to the old thinking."

It's Einstein's and Newton's thinking, Peter.

"Your 'interpretation' was nowhere near the meaning!"

I didn't interpret anything.

"Please give us the respect that we do actually KNOW what current assumptions are! And understand that we are not simply repeating those but exposing a new way of looking at things."

The problem is that your new way doesn't explain the old results.

"How about if we just focus on the body, as James is saying, but consider it as a loose collection of particles."

Okay.

"We then have two fundamental conditions, entirely independently of anything which may or may net be in motion or accelerating nearby. In one case, as Einstein specified the 'body' is in its own INERTIAL rest frame."

Okay.

"All inertial rest frames are equivalent as there is no other body or 'force' trying to alter it's state."

Okay.

"The other condition is when it is in some contact with some other BODY, so constituted of MATTER (be it solid or only a diffuse 'wind'), in which case there will be some compression of the bodies particles (or stretching if the action is partly imparted as a 'pull'). This is then the second funamental case, and outlide influence, which promotes Proper ACCELERATION'."

Relative to what?

"Now all the infinitely many cases of APPARENT Realtive velocity and acceleration you refer to are then exposed as arbitrary and not physically fundamental."

They never were physically fundamental.

"Of course for moving observers they are important, but the fundamental truth of a body being either 'at rest' or accelerated' lies within the body NOT with arbitrary moving OTHER bodies."

Then you don't understand relative motion.

"Can you see that important new insight into nature? If you now re-read my last post it will clarify."

If it includes your last assumption, it's wrong, too.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

""Is the acceleration due to gravity caused by the force of gravity?""

"No."

""Are they both forces? If one is not a force, why not?""

"Gravity as described by general relativity is a passive, one-way interaction between matter and spacetime. It doesn't "force" anything. Massive bodies do not resist their motion, in the absence of force."

This is a theoretical conclusion without your giving its justification. Why is gravity not a force? This question is asking for an answer that begins with the first reason for considering that gravity may not be a force. What is it that first distinguishes the nature of the force, or non-force, of gravity from other, or actual, forces?

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom

You must trust that I understand very well both relative motion and current theory.

The intended value of the foundation and FQXi is in 'advancing' fundamental understanding of physics. Improved understanding means NEW understanding, which is increasingly recognised as much needed.

You seem to have some inherent problem with that concept. When James and I do what is the ethos here, examine, challenge and discuss possible new advances on OLD understanding, all you do is insist it must be wrong as it's 'different', so assume we don't understand the OLD versions!!

That view, and comments like; "your new way doesn't explain the old results" are wholly wrong, inappropriate, and to be frank, not at all clever! If you really think there is something then specify it! None of us should be here to 'lecture'.

So lets be clear. I do understand relative motion, all Einstein's machinations, and current theory. Using that as the 'springing point' we are now thinking more deeply about fundamentals. I don't think you're incapable of joining in but you certainly make it look like it!

I've identified a clear difference between effects not examined in SR. A difference between 'The Same as' and 'Equivalent to' in respect to gravitational acceleration, not 'felt' by a body until resisted, and the physical interaction which is ONLY accelerative when 'felt.' This is NEW and subtle, but it's implications may be very important, also encompassing 'speed'. itself.. (James has a slightly different way of expressing it).

Now if you wish to make a contribution of any value, please trust me, it does NOT lie in simply trying to suggest we don't understand earlier views, particularly the most commonly held! That is wrong, unhelpful and indeed quite unscientific. So can you show that you too can let go your fears and 'think outside the box'? Give it a try at least!

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"(James has a slightly different way of expressing it)."

I have said it in different wordings over time. Here is how I prefer to say it:

The Principle of Equivalence belongs to all force.

The reasons why are:

Acceleration is change of velocity, measured with respect to time. Acceleration is the effect of the application of a force that is applied across a distance. The force may be evenly applied or unevenly applied. Objects do not feel force if it is applied evenly, or uniformly. Acceleration exists whether there is a feeling or not. The uneven application of a force will be felt. Non-uniform acceleration of the object's molecules is felt. It is the uneven changes of distance between molecules that is felt. Acceleration is indifferent to the type of force applied. The body undergoing uniform acceleration cannot tell that its velocity is changing. The principle of equivalence should be expanded to apply to all types of forces. Gravity is not unique in this respect.

Maybe that covers it. I say maybe because there has been no effect from saying these things. Perhaps, since the lack of response has been uniform, the effect can't be felt. :-)

James Putnam

In my previous message I stated that: The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force. I gave reasons why. There was another way of expressing my opinion that was not included. It is to say: The Principle of Equivalence should be done away with and the force of gravity should rejoin the other forces. I choose not to say it this way only because it strikes me as a good way to insure turning physicists off perhaps for all time. The principle is the basis for much of Relativity theory. I think saying that the Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force might have a small chance of attracting interest. In either case, it seems definite to me that something should be said. The current separation of gravity from other forces is not justifiable.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force."

It *does* apply to all forces, James.

It's a relativistic extension of F = ma.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The Principle of Equivalence should apply to all force."

It *does* apply to all forces, James.

It's a relativistic extension of F = ma."

I presume that you mean that nothing is excepted from relativity type effects. I also presume that you do not mean that there is no such thing as force. And I presume that you mean that gravity is not a force while electric force and magnetic force are forces. Finally, I then presume that you and I do not mean the same thing.

I mean that if acceleration and gravity are equivalent; then, acceleration and electric force are equivalent and acceleration and magnetic force are equivalent. The point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"he point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces."

That's no problem for a field theory.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The point is that, with regard to the general application of the Principle of Equivalence to all forces, none are forces."

"That's no problem for a field theory."

Ok good. Then in field theory all causes of acceleration, including both the unknown natural causes and all the invented theoretical causes, are equivalent to acceleration. None are distinguished from the group by the Principle of Equivalence. None are forces.

James Putnam

Tom,

I have said in the past that the speed of light varies. I say also that the velocity of light changes. Yes light does accelerate.

When I spoke, in the other recent message, of the photon being emitted by a charged particle, I said only that the particle accelerated and its acceleration led to its emitting the photon. I saw no need to include the acceleration of light because it was not relevant to the point I was making from the perspective of current physics. The photon is brought into existence by the acceleration of the charged particle.

The rest of the photon's history during its travel is important due to latter events, such as the Doppler effect, on the information that the photon carries. Everything that causes the photon to change its velocity becomes a part of its history and is represented in the information that the photon carries.

In my other message, I referred only to the cause of the photon's birth and that that cause was acceleration of the charged particle, and, that the acceleration of that charged particle is represented in the information that the photon carries and later delivers to another charged particle. It is the initial information and the most significant information that the photon receives and delivers.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Yes light does accelerate."

You've no doubt found a way for this to make sense to you, James. However, it doesn't match what we observe. And it doesn't stand up to what acceleration means -- i.e., a smooth continuum of change in speed. For that to be true, the photon would have to have a rest state. But it doesn't -- a photon is at rest only relative to all other photons, and no time elapses for photons.

Best,

Tom

Akinbo Ojo

Hi Tom and James,

Please be careful with the statement, "Yes, light does accelerate". Change of speed for a wave is different from the usual acceleration. For a particle picture, if you say a photon accelerates, what is the initial velocity? If there is no opposing force or any absorption by a target, what will be the final velocity? Anything that you claim accelerates must also be capable of decelerating and being existent at rest, so Tom's caution makes sense.

Regards,

Akinbo

Thomas Ray

Quite right, Akinbo. What all the speculation in this forum about the nature of photons (not just James's) boils down to, is that if special relativity is true, the speculation is false and pointless.

To the best of our knowledge, however, special relativity is a rock solid physical principle.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo,

Hi, I do maintain that light accelerates. However the story is longer than saying that it must then have a rest state. That story begins with making both mass and force defined properties instead of arbitrarily choosing one to be a fundamental indefinable property. Nature has already made its own choices about force and mass. Nature did not leave that decision for us to make.

When mass is made a defined property one learns new answers that immediately reflect that which empirical evidence is communicating to us instead of a mixture of that and human added on inventions such as the indefinable mass. A defined mass makes it known immediately that light accelerates. and, that that acceleration does not begin and end in a state of rest. There is no time when light does not have a velocity.

The rest of the story emerges as one develops higher level physics equations. Those higher level equations are dependent upon the definition of mass. Almost all of physics changes. The physics equations are returned to an empirical form freed of theoretical inventions. Whether one prefers to invent an indefinable mass or work with a defined mass makes a great difference. Empirical evidence tells us what mass and force are if we let it.

James Putnam

"What all the speculation in this forum about the nature of photons (not just James's) boils down to, is that if special relativity is true, the speculation is false and pointless."

Relativity type of effects are real. They remain real whether one chooses to use relativity theory or not. Equations for relativity type of effects remain even after relativity theory is replaced. Speculation is the stuff that theoretical physics is made of.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The physics equations are returned to an empirical form freed of theoretical inventions."

The equations are themselves theoretical inventions.

James Putnam

"The equations are themselves theoretical inventions."

Yes they are theoretical inventions so long as they contain theorists' inventions. Two of those inventions are the indefinable statuses of mass and temperature. Their invented interpretations are clearly identified by their indefinable units. There are other inventions that are harmful but are more difficult to point out. The matter does resolve itself though once both mass and temperature are defined.

James Putnam

F=ma begins its existence as an empirical equation. It begins with the recognition that the empirical evidence of acceleration of objects tell us that, besides the empirical properties of length and time, there are two additional properties. One is the cause of the acceleration and the other is resistance to acceleration. We don't know what the cause of acceleration is but the equation symbolizes it with the letter F. We don't know what the cause of resistance to acceleration is, but, the equation symbolizes it with the letter m. The names chosen for them are force and mass.

There immediately arises a challenge of how to define force and mass. Acceleration doesn't need to be defined. It consists of measures of length and time. There are no properties before length and time by which they may be made defined properties. Length and time are naturally fundamental indefinable properties. We either find a way to define both mass and force using only properties of length and time or we must invent a fundamental indefinable status for one of them. It has not been known how to define both force and mass so the choice was, and remains, that mass would be arbitrarily be made a fundamental indefinable property.

That act was the first intrusion of theory into a physics equations. From that point on f=ma became subservient to a theory instead of representing that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. nature communicates its mechanical information to us by the acceleration of objects. Instead of allowing that evidence to show us what mass is, physicists told the equation that mass would be a theoretical invention.

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo

James,

Your F = ma poser is well formulated and brings up the interesting question whether Force, F and mass, m can be reduced to the more fundamental length and time.

In this regard, one may note that hardly anything that has mass will not have length, whereas not all that is lengthy has mass. Again by E = MC2, what is massive can become massless, but even the massless must occupy some space, i.e. length.

Force is the more difficult of the two. Firstly, there can be no force unless it is opposed by another force. So in a sense, one may assume force does not actually exist as a fundamental thing but is merely an expression of some conservation principle. Perhaps, it is then this principle that requires length and time for its existence.

Then as to your position that light accelerates... if acceleration means rate of change in velocity, then if there is no resistance will light velocity become infinite? Also when light moves from air to glass will you call this deceleration? If you do, and the glass is of sufficient enough length, will the light not eventually be brought to rest in the glass given s = ut 1/2at^2? Such a scenario has never occurred. Rather what we see is light having a lower velocity in glass and a higher one in air, but not by acceleration.

Thomas Ray

"Acceleration doesn't need to be defined. It consists of measures of length and time."

Define "measures."

James Putnam

"Define "measures."

Meters and seconds. They have physical standards because they cannot be defined.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

Taking one point at a time:

"Your F = ma poser is well formulated and brings up the interesting question whether Force, F and mass, m can be reduced to the more fundamental length and time."

The answer is yes. That is what I have done and put to use redeveloping the fundamentals of physics. This is what I mean when I speak of theory free physics. There have been three properties by which all other properties of mechanics have been defined. Those three are length, time, and mass. Two of those, length and time, are naturally indefinable properties. They are the properties of empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is acceleration. There are no pre-existing properties by which either length or time can be defined. That is why they have arbitrary physical standards.

The third property, mass, is artificially indefinable. There should not be any artificial indefinable properties. The indefinable status of mass is a theory. It is a guess about how to proceed when one cannot see direction from empirical evidence. That guessing process is what theory consists of. By the act of defining mass in the terms of its empirical evidence, theory is removed from f=ma. Afterwards, all properties of mechanics are defined using only two truly fundamental indefinable properties, length and time. The new units for the defined property of mass are those of inverse acceleration. Force is then defined as a ratio of two accelerations. All other properties of mechanics are then defined using combinations of meters and seconds only. There is of course much more to be said.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

"In this regard, one may note that hardly anything that has mass will not have length, whereas not all that is lengthy has mass. Again by E = MC2, what is massive can become massless, but even the massless must occupy some space, i.e. length."

That I don't understand.

"Force is the more difficult of the two. Firstly, there can be no force unless it is opposed by another force. So in a sense, one may assume force does not actually exist as a fundamental thing but is merely an expression of some conservation principle. Perhaps, it is then this principle that requires length and time for its existence."

This is expressed very clearly for me and is correct. There is a conservation principle at work. It is a conservation of acceleration. For example light slows its speed as it approaches the Earth. A freely falling object gains in speed that which light loses. The acceleration of a freely falling object is equal but opposite to the acceleration of light. What light gives up, the object gains.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

"Then as to your position that light accelerates... if acceleration means rate of change in velocity, then if there is no resistance will light velocity become infinite? Also when light moves from air to glass will you call this deceleration? If you do, and the glass is of sufficient enough length, will the light not eventually be brought to rest in the glass given s = ut 1/2at^2? Such a scenario has never occurred. Rather what we see is light having a lower velocity in glass and a higher one in air, but not by acceleration."

The variation of the speed of light is the single original cause for all mechanical effects. It is the property of fundamental unity. When mass is correctly defined in f=ma, we achieve fundamental unity. That unity is constantly seen in the definitions of all other mechanical properties. Fundamental unity is a clearly seen part of all physics equations after they are redeveloped beginning with f=ma as their guide.

Light slows when it enters glass. It does not continue slowing. It has an average speed in glass. It slows because of its close proximity to mass. Length also shortens inside glass. For an observer inside the glass who is measuring the speed of light locally, they will measure the speed as C. Light always measures locally as C.

Both length and time are properties that are represented by the speed of light. In the case of length, it shortens as light slows. In the case of time, it is a constant as experienced by light. As for time dilation, it is the slowing of processes due to the slowing of light. It is light that is holding atoms together. Light determines the size of an atom. Light controls the speed at which an atom functions. A change in the speed of light results in changes in atomic size and rate of activity.

James Putnam

There are three properties that need to change in order to reformulate physics equations into their empirical forms. The first is being currently written about here with more to follow. It is the act of making mass a defined property and learning that the empirical units of mass are those of inverse acceleration. The second property of temperature is similar to mass in that it is currently a fundamental indefinable property. Its units of degrees are artificially made indefinable.

That is why explanations about what is temperature begin with the words 'It is a measure of...'. That 'of' property is always something other than temperature such as saying that temperature is a measure of average kinetic molecular energy. It is average molecular energy that is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Temperature doesn't have units of Joules because temperature is something other than energy. Temperature is proportional to average molecular kinetic energy. Fixing the units of temperature by learning how to define temperature in terms of empirical evidence results in units of meters/second. Only in this case meters represents the reduced form of the units of energy.

The units of energy are those of the product of force and length which are, in full empirical units, (meters/second2/meters/second2)(meters) which is, in its reduced form, just meters. The empirical units of temperature are those of the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. Temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules.

James Putnam

The immediate benefit of defining temperature, other than learning what it is, is that a property defined in terms that include temperature can also now become understood. An important such property is thermodynamic entropy. It is not known what thermodynamic entropy is. That is why, just as with temperature, attempts at explaining it begin with the words 'It is a measure of...'. As with temperature, it is not a measure of something else. It may be proportional to something else, but it is itself unknown.

Its new empirical units help show what thermodynamic temperature is. Its definition is energy/temperature. Now that it is known that temperature has units of meters/second and energy has units of meters, it can be immediately seen that the empirical units of thermodynamic entropy are seconds. Its units fit with its definition. In order to understand its definition as a length of time, one must be familiar with what an ideal gas it. The important point about an ideal gas is that its pressure is very low. Gases in general behave like an ideal gas as their pressures become very low. The ideal gas must have a constant temperature throughout.

The temperature is the rate of exchange of average kinetic energy between molecules. As the pressure of the gas is made lower and lower it reaches a crucial temperature. That temperature is the key to Clausius's definition of thermodynamic entropy. The key temperature is the rate of exchange of average kinetic energy between molecules at the rate equal to that which would occur if all the molecules of the gas were lined up one after another with no gaps and passed their kinetic energy to the next molecule, one after the other, until the total number of molecules is reached.

Two related pieces of information. Boltxmann's constant is the time it takes for one molecule to pass its kinetic energy to another single molecule. The universal gas constant is the total time required for average kinetic energy to be passed from molecule to molecule, one after the other, until the number of molecules in a mole of gas, Avogadro's number, is reached. That is the kind of information that falls out of reforming the equations of physics into their empirical forms. It begins with fixing f=ma. The fix for f=ma is to define mass.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"'Define 'measures.'

"Meters and seconds. They have physical standards because they cannot be defined."

Then a meter could be the diameter of the universe and a second could be eternity. The standards of measurement are our conventions, James, not nature's.

In fact, mathematically, the diameter of the universe is length 1, and for the speed of light particles stretching that length, eternity is not differentiable from a single second.

James Putnam

The natural standard for time, in terms of seconds, is 1.602x10-19. It is the time for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. Its symbol is tc = one photon time.

The natural standard for length, in terms of meters, is 4.8x10-11, It is the size of the radius of the hydrogen atom. Its symbol is lc = one photon length.

Now the big one, mass, without theory. Just as the speed of light always measures the same locally, so does its acceleration. The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally. The local acceleration of light is calculated as 1/C/tc = tc/C = 5.344x10-28sec2/m or kilograms. Its symbol is ml = one standard mass.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, what makes these values "natural" rather than arbitrary?

There are, after all, more fundamental physical objects than a hydrogen atom.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally."

That would be negative mass. I think I covered this before. A massive particle of zero momentum has negative mass, by E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2.

James Putnam

In my previous message I presented he natural standard for mass:

"Now the big one, mass, without theory. Just as the speed of light always measures the same locally, so does its acceleration. The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally. The local acceleration of light is calculated as 1/C/tc = tc/C = 5.344x10-28sec2/m or kilograms. Its symbol is ml = one standard mass."

Now to put this into context:

Explaining the empirically defined property of mass. First, the units are formed directly from those of the empirical evidence. There were a few possible choices, but the one that makes physical sense and establishes a fundamental principle of conservation is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration.

The next step taken is to calculate 1/mass to obtain the magnitude of the associated acceleration. It is huge, but, that is because the calculation is per second. There is a far shorter time period when almost all of the acceleration occurs. First, I establish that the property that is undergoing the acceleration is light. It is matter's effect on the speed of light that establishes what matter is for us. On example is that light slows as it approaches a proton. Light also slows as it approaches an atom, but, that rate is far lower than for the lone proton.

One such property is the time it takes for light to travel the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. Another is the radius length of the hydrogen atom.

It is that length of 4.8x10-11 meters that is also the distance over which almost all of the acceleration of light occurs. Beyond that length, the acceleration is very small and continues to decrease with distance for the proton. The electron's effect on the speed of light is different from that of the proton. It will be covered separately in a later message.

James Putnam

Quoting myself and Tom:

Me: "The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally."

Tom: "That would be negative mass. I think I covered this before. A massive particle of zero momentum has negative mass, by E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2."

Tom's equation isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here. However, the use of a full energy equation, or an analogous for of the equation Tom gives above, are needed and have been derived. Their derivation arises out of theory free physics so the ideas of Relativity theory are absent. I will present the corrected forms of the Lorentz transforms and Einstein's energy equation in an upcoming message. There are some important points about theory free physics that should come first.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Tom's equation isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here."

Only if E = mc^2 is false. Which of course, it isn't.

James Putnam

"James, what makes these values "natural" rather than arbitrary?

There are, after all, more fundamental physical objects than a hydrogen atom."

I took the lead from empirical evidence. There are two guides. One is that the natural units of measurement should drive from the properties of light. The other is that many of the constants of nature have properties of the hydrogen atom as their source of origin. I can, of course, show this. Some of it has already been presented here at FQXi.org by me. It just doesn't get read.

""Tom's equation, E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2, isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course, represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here.""

"Only if E = mc^2 is false. Which of course, it isn't."

E = mc2 works. However, it is formed by incorporating some of the very guesses that I have removed thus far from physics equations. With those guesses gone the energy equation re-appears in its empirical form. I will present its fixed form in a later message. I do not deny that relativity type effects occur. I do recognize that E = mc2 works. It is based upon the same patterns in empirical evidence that I rely upon. Not the same theoretical ideas, but, the same patterns. It is the patterns that are communicating that which we can know about nature from the mechanical perspective. Without theory there to obstruct the view, we learn what it is that empirical evidence is making known to us. Uncovering that kind of knowledge is science.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I do recognize that E = mc2 works. It is based upon the same patterns in empirical evidence that I rely upon. Not the same theoretical ideas, but, the same patterns. It is the patterns that are communicating that which we can know about nature from the mechanical perspective."

James, I'm reminded of an old "Peanuts" cartoon. Linus and Charlie Brown are cloud-gazing, and interpreting what they see. Linus goes into an elaborate description of the stoning of Stephen, complete with all of Rembrandt's characters and the unconverted apostle Paul looking on. Then he asks, "what do you see, Charlie Brown?"

"Well, I was going to say a duckie and a horsy, but I may change my mind."

Our theoretical descriptions are the only *objective* standard that we have. Even for patterns of cloud formations, on which Mitchell Feigenbaum did a great deal of research, that helped launch the nascent science of chaos.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

"Our theoretical descriptions are the only *objective* standard that we have."

Theory is not objective. It consists of guesses about the unknown. It is not objective or it wouldn't need to invent artificial indefinable properties, Fix f=ma for an objective look at empirical evidence. Get rid of artificial indefinable units. Those are invented. Those are fog not clouds. You can't see clearly for all the theory in your way.

James Putnam

From a previous message by me:

"There are three properties that need to change in order to reformulate physics equations into their empirical forms. The first is being currently written about here with more to follow. It is the act of making mass a defined property and learning that the empirical units of mass are those of inverse acceleration. The second property of temperature is similar to mass in that it is currently a fundamental indefinable property. Its units of degrees are artificially made indefinable."

I went on to show that temperature is not a measure or ..., it is a measure of itself. A temperature scale measure temperature. Temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. We can know easily that temperature is a unique physical activity. One way is that it had to be given its own artificial indefinable units. That means it was not known what temperature was and still is not recognized what temperature is.

However, theory free physics demonstrates that temperature is dE/dt or energy divided by time. It is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. So long to "Temperature is a measure of...(where ... is something other than temperature).

The third property in need of change is electric charge. What could be wrong with something as familiar to everyone as electric charge is. I present here only the problem at this time. The problem is that there is only one cause for all effects and that cause is the variation of the speed of light. The old practice of inventing new causes to fill in for the unknown, when it was not understood how otherwise to proceed forward with developing physics equations, is being rooted out.

In the case of electric, two unknowns appeared in Coulomb's equation. It was guessed that those two unknowns probably represented the cause of electric force. That guess gave birth to 'electric charge. Here we see again how those guesses open the door to let theory rush in to fill a void that doesn't need filling because it is not a void. Nature didn't leave us a void to fill.

Electric charge definitely represents something real of great importance. One reason to know this is that its absolute magnitude for an electron or proton is a fundamental universal constant. That is a big deal and must be dealt with when the is only one cause and it is not electric charge. What then is electric charge? No one knows what electric charge is anyway, so the question is not out of line. The challenge is to learn what empirical evidence tells us about the cause of electric and magnetic effects and how they are part of the single cause for all effects.

James Putnam

Tom,

"James, what makes these values "natural" rather than arbitrary?

There are, after all, more fundamental physical objects than a hydrogen atom."

Yes that is true. However, I can give you two magnitudes that will appear at any scale. One is the value 1.602x10-19 and the other is 4.8x10-11. The first one will appear whether measurements are made remotely or locally. The second will show up as a local measurement. As the objects in question become smaller and smaller, local measurements should still be possible. As an example, temperature is a local measurement. Stick a macroscopic thermometer into a macroscopic quantity of liquid, take a reading and that reading is a local measurement on the molecular scale. The reading will fit with what an observer on one of the molecules involved in the test would measure.

James Putnam

Correction:

In two previous messages in this thread I said:

"However, theory free physics demonstrates that temperature is dE/dt or energy divided by time. It is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules."

This is not correct. The statement should read that: Temperature is proportional to the rate of exchange of molecular kinetic energy between molecules. Temperature is not quantitatively the same as the rate, because, temperature was assigned the units of degrees. The temperature scale was arbitrarily set to equal 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water.

This discrepancy between what temperature is and what it should have been can be moderated with the introduction of a constant of proportionality. My work shows this constant to be 1.29x0-4 unit free.

The use of this constant allows me to work with a modified temperature. It is that modified temperature which should have been defined as the real property of temperature. I should have said that modified temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. That is the way I wrote about it in my last essay.

James Putnam

Richard,

From your discussion of Einstein's chest and hook example:

"This example leads me to believe that the observer would not be able to feel any difference between the chest being in a uniform gravitational field and the chest being in uniform acceleration."

I submit that the correct conclusion is still the one I gave in my discussion of the elevator example:

"There is a revealing connection between this example and the importance of first properly understanding force. This connection is: An analysis of force tells us there is a difference between gravity and acceleration by another force. In the case of gravity we know there are two forces at work on the scientist. Gravity exerts a force on him trying to pull him downward. The floor of the room is exerting a second and separate force pushing upward against him. There are two equal but opposite forces at work. These two forces cause compression and distortion.

Pointing specifically to: "...we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect." and "The equivalence principle belongs to force."

In other words, neither example demonstrates that gravity is not a force. It does not matter what the force is. If it is applied uniformly, the object or person undergoing the acceleration will have no sensation by which to detect that their velocity is changing.

What I find very telling is that scientists are asked to disregard evidence: "All he needs is a window to prove they are different."

James Putnam

The kinetic theory of gases yields: Ekinetc = 3/2 kBoltzmannT. It is heralded as extraordinarily successful attempt to bring the behavior of gases within the realm of classical mechanics. The equation's final form is correct. However, the kinetic theory derivation was not necessary to find a way to justify the correct form of the equation.

The 3/2 fraction was the problem that the kinetic theory is credited with justifying. Actually, that fraction occurs in the equation because of the difference between measuring remotely and locally. In other words, it results from the relativistic type effect of length contraction. The length contraction is not noticed for local measurements. Temperature is a local measurement.

In order for the final equation to give the correct molecular kinetic energy, as evidence by the macroscopic properties of pressure times volume, the local measurement of length must be adjusted to agree with length measured macroscopically. The 3/2 fraction is an inverse representation of a 2/3 fraction that adjusts the local measurement of length up to that which matches with the remote measurement of the length. It is adjusted to make the equation consistent with remote measurements of both length and kinetic energy.

James Putnam

Just in case my last message about the kinetic theory of gases vs length contraction isn't strong enough to attract interest, I offer this food for thought:

The equation for molecular kinetic energy of a molecule of an ideal gas is equally valid while including Planck's constant as shown here:

Ekinetic = 3/2(hPlanck/radiushydrogen atom)T

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I should have said that modified temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules."

James, I don't understand how that "modifies" the meaning of temperature. If you mean, that instead of taking temperature as an average of total molecular motion within some chosen volume, we measure the average exchange of energy between any two molecules -- then it's the same thing. When one sums all these exchanges, the numerical result is temperature, measured by whatever degree standard one chooses or invents.

I have honestly tried to follow what you are saying, but all I find are assumptions of that which was to be proved. If you deny that you need a theory to drive your conclusions, you'll continually go in circles.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"I don't understand how that "modifies" the meaning of temperature. If you mean, that instead of taking temperature as an average of total molecular motion within some chosen volume, we measure the average exchange of energy between any two molecules -- then it's the same thing. When one sums all these exchanges, the numerical result is temperature, measured by whatever degree standard one chooses or invents."

I said that temperature is a rate. It is energy per unit of time. Energy is the numerator. Temperature and energy are not the same thing. Temperature does not get summed up. It is a local measurement of the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. That exchange of energy can be happening between multiple molecules simultaneously with the thermometer. Degrees are an artificial indefinable unit. They can't tell you what temperature is. My act of working with a defined mass and defined temperature with defined units yields units that do tell us what mass is and what temperature is.

"I have honestly tried to follow what you are saying, but all I find are assumptions of that which was to be proved. If you deny that you need a theory to drive your conclusions, you'll continually go in circles."

I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Degrees are an artificial indefinable unit. They can't tell you what temperature is."

So how does one know the difference between hot and cold? If what you say were true, there is no demarcation at any point between the extremes -- it would be the case that everything is either infinitely hot, or infinitely cold.

"I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions."

By your calculation, then, what is it? -- is the world infinitely hot or infinitely cold?

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

You are incorrect as usual about what temperature is:

"So how does one know the difference between hot and cold? If what you say were true, there is no demarcation at any point between the extremes -- it would be the case that everything is either infinitely hot, or infinitely cold."

Put your marks on a tube. Set the divisions between those marks with the Carnot engine as your guide. But, you still do not know what temperature is. The evidence that you do not know is that you are calling your marks degrees. Degrees is a fundamental indefinable units representing a fundamental indefinable property. Give you indirect explanations about a measure of ... , referring to something other than temperature such as average molecular kinetic energy. Every measure of average molecular kinetic energy has units of Joules. You have units of degrees and you have no definition by which to explain them. Those inexplicable Degrees represent temperature and you have no definition of temperature by which to explain what it is. You can't learn what it is from degrees because degrees are themselves not definable. Your acceptance of a theoretical guess about something that can serve temporarily in place of the unknown so that you may move forward with developing your equations, leaves you indirect answers.

Your gamesmanship of infinitely hot or cold demonstrates that you have no understanding yet of the inadequacy of a theoretical physics that employs the use of artificial fundamental indefinable units. They continue to exist because they continue to represent inexplicable properties. The two artificial indefinable units are kilograms and degrees. I don't have that problem. I work only with defined units other than the units of empirical evidence, meters and seconds. They represent properties that will never be defined.

Me: "I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions."

Tom: "By your calculation, then, what is it? -- is the world infinitely hot or infinitely cold?"

By my calculation, a defined temperature allows inexplicable properties such as thermodynamic entropy to finally be revealed. Also, Boltzmann's constant the Universal Gas constant now have physical origins. I am not going in circles Tom. The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch."

You are correct. My crutch, however, holds me up. Your who-shot-John beating around the bush is supported by nothing -- I asked for a calculation, and I get hot air. Something about defining inexplicable properties, and no clue as to how you can possibly distinguish hot from cold.

James Putnam

Tom,

"Something about defining inexplicable properties, and no clue as to how you can possibly distinguish hot from cold."

Unbelievable. You won't crack an introductory textbook to learn the difference between a defined property and an indefinable. Undefinable means indefinable.

Pretending that you can explain that which is indefinable is not scientific. My temperature calculates the same way yours does except in order for mine to correct for your arbitrary magnitude, I need a proportionality constant. The other more important difference is that my temperature is a defined property. Being defined means its physical explanation is known. You can't give anything but an indirect answer for what is temperature. The correct defined units for temperature allow for those, who understand the significance of having defined units, to give a direct answer for what is temperature. Your calculation challenge has nothing to do with anything that I have said. The problem still lies with your inability to understand what is being said.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch.""

"You are correct. My crutch, however, holds me up."

It doesn't hold you up. That is why you are forced into a position of giving indirect answers about mass and temperature. That is why you have no supporting evidence for the existence of spacetime and yet will make the misleading statement that its existence is confirmed. Your theoretical foundation has missing pieces and invented substitutes for the unknown. Those foundational problems adversely infects all theory built upon that incomplete foundation. Get rid of those artificial indefinable properties and replace them with defined properties. Then your foundation will be scientific instead of pretend.

James Putnam

In the interest of taking physics back from the blackboard and placing it on a firm empirical foundation, it is necessary to repeat for the umpteenth time that there are two naturally indefinable properties. They are the properties of length and time. There are no pre-existing properties by which they may be defined. They will remain always inexplicable beyond recognizing that there is room and time for activity of objects to take place.

All other properties must be defined properties. Defined properties are those that are definable in terms of pre-existing properties. All these other properties have the availability of two pre-existing properties. All properties that are not empirical evidence must be defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence is inferred.

There cannot be any indefinable properties other than length and time. There can be no indefinable units other than meters and seconds. Otherwise, empirical leadership is traded off for human inventions. As a first step, both force and mass must be definable in terms of length and time. Their units must be definable in terms of meters and seconds.

This must be understood and corrected resulting in the removal of theory from physics equations. The equations, beginning with f=ma are returned to their original empirical forms. These are the forms that tell us what it is that empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

Temperature, with the addition of a proportionality constant to negate the effect of arbitrary units of degrees, is the rate of exchange of molecular kinetic energy among molecules. This rate is the same everywhere in the medium by definition. Temperature is a state of equilibrium. There is no variation of temperature during equilibrium conditions.

If energy is to be added to the medium without upsetting the condition of equilibrium, then that energy must be put into the medium at the rate set by the temperature of the medium. This is the condition that prevails for the Carnot engine. The scale of degrees Kelvin is based upon a series of connected Carnot engines. Degrees is presently an indefinable unit. However, degrees can be defined in terms of the units of its empirical evidence.

When this is done, the definition of degrees in units of meters and seconds tells us what temperature is. No more indirect answers. No more of equating being proportional to with being the same as. Temperature is not energy. temperature is the rate of exchange of energy per unit of time.

James Putnam

Temperature and its units of degrees can both become defined. However, temperature comes after f=ma. Everything comes after f=ma. Therefore, everything depends upon fixing f=ma. The fix that is necessary is to define both force and mass in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. It happens that force cannot precede mass for its definition. Mass must be defined first and then force is definable in terms of mass, length and time. Mass is the property that is most relevant to that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

The fix for f=ma begins with defining mass. Then, the definition of force follows automatically. Later, temperature appears as a property and is immediately definable. We learn immediately what temperature is. What follows are physics equations that no longer contain artificial indefinable properties and units. The equations are made completely empirically based. Human intervention in the form of invented units and properties is prevented from interfering with the natural development of physics equations.

James Putnam

The universe is controlled. This is made clear because it contains no lack of control. the existence of lack of control in any amount, no matter how small, would destroy all control. Even mechanics, the lowest form of scientific interpretation of the operation of the universe, would not exist. The control of the universe is immediate everywhere. The laws of physics apply everywhere. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere at all times.

The importance of recognizing the absolute controlled nature of the universe is that it is evidence that there is only one case for all effects. There can be different appearing causes that are different aspects of the single cause, but there cannot be more than one independent unique cause.

The science of physics should reflect the existence of a single cause for all effects. That reflection is not something to be added on by artificial means after physics equations are formed. It is something that should be seen at all stages and in all equations. Its existence should be always recognizable in any equation

the practice of separating cause into separate unique forces such as the "four fundamental forces of nature" is evidence of early errors. The empirical evidence, whose patterns are being modeled by f=ma, informs us that there is force and resistance to force. There is no information about separation of forces.

The practice of identifying separate forces came about because of lack of understanding about how else to proceed forward with physics equations. We didn't understand how to begin with a single cause so we invented the idea of separate causes or forces. This practice is another example of theory intervening into physics equations. The equations not only do not need our intervention, but, they cannot remain correct while enduring our intervention. We became led by our own inventions rather than by that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

Some preliminary information concerning relativity type effects. This presentation recognizes the empirical existence of relativity type effects. It does not use relativity theory to account for them.

The transform equation for length contraction derived using a variable speed of light is:

L2 = L1(vc2/vc1)

Where:

Vc2 = (vc12 - vp2)1/2

Resulting in:

L2 = L1(1 - vp2/vc12)1/2

Vc1 and vc2 are the speed of light at an initial and a final condition. For non zero speed parallel to the surface of the Earth, the local speed of light vc2 for the object in motion, slows.

For general relativity calculations, vc1 is the speed of light at one height in the gravitational field and vc2 is the speed of light at a different height in the gravitational field.

The speed of light slows as light approaches the Earth at a rate equal but opposite to the acceleration due to gravity. The velocity vc1 = C in the vacuum of space far from matter.

In both cases, vc1 and vc2 always measure locally as C. For the remote observer both vc1 and vc2 are variables.

The model, not explained in this message, used to represent electromagnetism does not permit the speed of light to go to zero. Not by a long shot.

James Putnam

I gave the equations for length contraction that result from the variation of the speed of light. Also, in an earlier message, I reported that the 3/2 fraction in the ideal gas kinetic energy equation results from length contraction. In this case velocity is not the cause, it occurs because length contraction results from the slowing of the speed of light at atomic distances.

The main point is to establish that there is no time dilation. Activity occurs because of the action of light. When light slows, action slows. Time ticks on as recorded by the clock of the universe. The universe has a universal constant fundamental increment of time. That increment was introduced in my essay entry in the "Nature of Time" essay contest. It was put to work there correcting fundamental physics equations.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Apart from omitting the LT, I agree your equations are equivalent as far as they go to those of my essays and Pound-Rebka resolution (Alternative Models of.. blog).

But as my post there today I suggest that the gamma curve embodied in SR is real and empirically confirmed with a mechanism (as my DFM paper linked there) which invokes a reasonably well known effect from plasma physics and non-linear optics. I hope that may help avoid alienation of those aware that the effects represented by the Lorentz Transformation curve are empirically verified.

I appreciate your quite well thought-out simplification and re-statement of concepts consistent with the Discrete Field Model as discussed, and hope they may prove fruitful. I should however say that you appear to have under-specified in some areas, such as observer frames, and in your description that; "length contraction results from the slowing of the speed of light at atomic distances", which is of course entirely your own description.

In the DFM by contrast the proper 'speed of light' remains constant at c locally even at 'atomic distances'. The change of propagation rate in the bulk flow rest frame is effected by 'particle interaction' delays alone (PMD), which produce the local medium refractive index 'n', consistent with optical science.

As a separate element the observer may also be in relative motion v with respect to the medium bulk flow rest frame. In this case there is an 'apparent' not propagation speed of arbitrary apparent 'c+v'. This will change to the new local c on interaction with any lens or antenna moving through the medium, so all observers find c.

This may seem more complex but avoids interpretive misunderstanding. It may represent what you intended, or perhaps your own model is entirely different and does not confirm to the SR postulates?

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

"Apart from omitting the LT, I agree your equations are equivalent as far as they go to those of my essays and Pound-Rebka resolution (Alternative Models of.. blog)."

Lets cut this one short. My equations are not equivalent to anything that applies to your model. And, they go farther than you have by far. Please give your equations that apply to the Pound-Reka experiment? I will pursue this with you.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

""Apart from omitting the LT, I agree your equations are equivalent as far as they go..." and; "My equations are not equivalent to anything that applies to your model. And, they go farther than you have by far."

Wow! Sorry if the word 'equivalent' upset you somehow. You obviously feel some strong 'propriatorship', whereas I don't think in terms of anyone 'owning' nature or mathematics. I was merely agreeing that they accurately reflected the DFM based resolution to the Pound-Rebka findings which we were discussing a few hours before, which they do. I simply assumed you'd responded to my suggestion that you derive an appropriate formula. How could I not? I was simply agreeing their consistency (if we ignore gamma). How or why you suggest they're 'not equivalent to anything that applies to' the DFM or it's P-R explanation I really don't understand as to me they use the same density based refractive index delta (see last years essay) but don't extend to the Doppler motion element.

Please understand I'm not even hinting at any plagiarism or unoriginality. I agree how you applied them! Confirmation and agreement are valuable and valid functions. I'm not quite sure what you mean by going 'farther by far', bit I see no point to argue over.

As far as 'my' equations go, I don't consider them 'mine,' they belong to mathematics and the model. They're far from original and are generic so can cover all cases and have done. I simply used wavelength 'lambda' rather than L for length. Many are in both my arXiv paper and the endnotes of previous essays. Last years sample extends to the relative motion case and start with;

Lambda c = Lambda c+v (1 + v/c)-1 then builds through co-moving cases to derive the frequency and also wavefunction transformations, - then to derive observed speed c in each case, i.e. for receding receiver;

f'Lambda' = {f (1 - v/c)} {lambda(1 - v/c)-1} = f lambda = c

Again I'm sorry if I upset you unintentionally. I've opened the heart of the DFM to you without being 'precious', secretive or possessive so assume others do the same.

If it helps the arXiv paper is here, mainly explaining why mirrors moving in a gas or vacuum reflect at c wrt the vacuum not the mirror. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Peter,

My response was unduly confrontational. My concern was that your use of the Lorentz transforms and my use are not compatible let alone in agreement in some way. It is not so much ownership that motivated me as to retaining clear distinction between what I say and mean and what others may report or infer that I said or meant. I assume you face this same problem. My more relaxed response is this: It is not the look of the Lorentz Transforms and its consistency when used by competing ideas that has relevancy. It is the meaning intended for the properties contained in the transforms that matters to me. Einstein's meanings for length contraction and time dilation are not your meaning for length contraction and time dilation and neither of your meanings are in agreement with mine.

Your message caused me to think that you claimed agreement in meanings between our uses of the Lorentz Transforms. Maybe you saw it that way and maybe you didn't, but, I definitely did not. My immediate impression was that you are not familiar with the meaning I attach to the property of length contraction, because I understood that you firmly disagree with it yet you claimed agreement.

I am not the first person to take a stand in favor of a variable speed of light. There is little for a person to "own" about an idea that has continuously existed for so long. What I have never found yet in anyone else's work is that my results follow from changes in physics that begin with correcting mass in f=ma and affect almost everything about the interpretations attached to properties in theoretical physics. In short, I do not agree with the property interpretations used by theoretical physics.

I see your role as accepting physics theory with some new modifications that you believe remove remaining paradox's. If this is correct, then there is a chasm of disagreement of views and meanings between our approaches. I do not say this to appear to be claiming that your model is false. That is up to theoretical physics relativists to agree or disagree with. So far as I know after twelve years on the Internet, I am alone. I am not saying that that is good or bad. It just is what it is. Our approaches are very different even though the Lorentz Transforms' appearances have that look of familiarity.

I apologize for the hostility of my previous message.

James Putnam

From an earlier message describing partly the model I use:

The local acceleration of light is calculated as 1/C/tc = tc/C = 5.344x10-28sec2/m or kilograms. Its symbol is ml = one standard mass. Inverting it yields:

Acceleration of light = 1.88x1027 m/s2

Light cannot accelerate past C. For a proton, it reaches approximately C within a distance of 4.8x10-11meters. This is approximately the distance at which it would, if it could, achieve C. However, it doesn't reach C but comes close. The remainder of its acceleration very abruptly diminishes into following a curve that very slowly approaches C as distance heads for infinity. At the surface of the Earth, its acceleration is -g. Afterwards it continues to vary as -g varies. Light continues to increase its speed, at a lowering rate, as it moves away from the Earth.

James Putnam

Fixing thermodynamics:

The fix is: Define temperature. The correction to physics theory at the introduction of mass is to define mass. In this model, mass is finally a defined property. It no longer needs indefinable units. Its nature is now known. That one correction leads to the definition of temperature. That second correction fixes thermodynamics. Since the model includes fundamental unity, it is expected over and over again that different fields will no longer be different fields, but, will be found to intermix meanings.

One meaning is that of length contraction. Length contraction is an effect that occurs to length in electromagnetism. More directly, it is an effect on macroscopic objects. Objects can be caused to shrink in length. An example of the usefulness of working with fundamental unity is that thermodynamics confirms the existence of length contraction. It is the measurement of temperature that confirms the existence of length contraction.

Temperature is a local, atomic dimension, measurement of the exchange of average molecular kinetic energy among molecules. Local measurements are constant. They do not change with length contraction. However, temperature is included in thermodynamic equations as if it were a remote measurement. It is believed to be a macroscopic property. Thermodynamic properties are supposed to be macroscopic properties of large assemblies of molecules. A difficulty arises from this misapplication of temperature. It is the magnitude of temperature in the equations EK=3/2 kBoltzmannT that is responsible for the appearance of the fraction 3/2.

That fraction is the inverse representation of the proportionality constant for converting the exchange of average molecular kinetic energy among molecules from temperature's local perspective to the remote version of perspective. The general finding is that length contracts very significantly at atomic distances. This occurs because the speed of light changes very significantly at atomic distances. It is length that contracts to 2/3 its macroscopic size.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James,

No probs, I don't offend easily. I was probably a little insensitive as even generic equations need thought to apply and formulate from 1st principles. I also agree your own proposals are quite original. I agree about F=ma, as I've often pointed out we have no clue what F or M are so it's usefulness is limited. I'm interested where you go with it. I haven't seen any predictive power from your model yet but look forward to some.

Lorentz Transformation. You say; "It is the meaning intended for the properties contained in the transforms that matters to me." I co-wrote a paper covering Lorentz's original 'meaning' in 2009; Academia, LT/Aberration. Just see the first sections. (You'll actually find a version of your equations in there formulated for the 'time signal' contraction.) You should find the paper helpful anyway.

My approach is more fundamentally scientific, purely deriving effects from physical mechanisms. I'll let others argue about "meaning"! So the LT may 'look' different to you (and science) but it simply 'is what it is'.

You say you see my role as "accepting physics theory with some new modifications that you believe remove remaining paradox's." Actually no. The mechanisms identified actually clear away vast tracts of theoretical interpretation. However, beyond that is then very much a matter of 'presentation'. There genuinely are correct bits and interpretations, so lets not throw out babies with bathwater but be positive and 'find unity in hidden likeness'. Tracking down the one key hidden error in SR makes that approach easy.

Trying to sell somebody a whole replacement physics (attack the citadel walls head on) is less likely to succeed than selling small obviously correct bytes, which will then do the same job. i.e. It should prove a more successful strategy to overcome theoretical and doctrinal inertia and escape the deep rut science is in. It's the same mechanisms but served up palatably without invoking fear of death, so rejection.

Acceleration of Light. You should be aware I consider that concept a misnomer as it's underspecified. Light between each particle does c. Light in a GRIN (graded index of refraction) lens then always propagates at c in the local frame. In the alternative 'bulk' frame it then 'appears' to propagate at c, but only because the particles and their effects are 'invisible'. C+V is then only an 'apparent' speed from some particular frame conditions, but also has TWO components, because the whole medium and observer may ALSO be in co-motion. These two distinct elements is what my 2011 essay identified and explained along with rationalising observer frame dependence. Light does not then truly 'accelerate', it merely encounters more or less particles, which may also 'move' arbitrarily. That is the DFM's holy grail which 'reading over' will always ensure is missed!

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Following the lead of empirical evidence produces defined mass. Defined mass reveals the acceleration of light. Then follows the defining of temperature. These two corrections to the equations of physics should have been enough to reveal fundamental unity. They did undo two obstacles to recovering fundamental unity. Yet, fundamental unity remains elusive. The reason why is that there remains one further obstacle.

The first two were easy to identify by their artificial indefinable statuses represented in equations by their artificial indefinable units. That runs the search out of indefinable units to fix. Yet fundamental unity awaits for the discovery of the third obstacle. That third obstacle will be presented a second time. The first time was in my first essay "The Absoluteness of Time".

James Putnam

The acceleration of light is very significant for distances less than 4.8x10-11. It quickly decreases to very small increases for greater distances. For materials where atoms are packed closely together the speed of light will blend into a near constant value. It still undergoes very significant accelerations for light that approach nucleuses for distances less than the first energy level radius of the atoms. Light cannot continue to accelerate for distances that do not increase away from the nucleuses. Similarly, light cannot increase its speed for level distances above the Earth.

This idea of light accelerating is currently anathema. Yet the only thing lost due to a variable speed of light is time dilation. Light speed varies, time does not warp. The work that has been developed using a variable speed of light reveals that there is a universal constant increment of time. That increment of time turns out to be the key to achieving full fundamental unity.

Adding in something else: The speed of light and the speed of sound in a material are related. They are related in the manner of the properties currently identified as electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.

James Putnam

Received fresh evidence from a recent message that the following needs repeated with more emphasis. I describe that which is apparently not obvious but is definitely self-evident:

Adding to this: My opinion is that if one accepts the indefinable status of mass, then one is adopting a theoretical belief system. One has to have a definition for mass because the status of mass infects almost all physics equations that follow f=ma. If one uses an indefinable mass, then one is adopting an indefinable physics. Making matters worse is the acceptance of an indefinable temperature. Then there remains one more theoretical obstacle to remove from physics equations. That one can wait until mass receives the defined status that it must have to advance scientific learning. The end result is direct dependence upon empirical evidence for direction, and thereby, learning that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

pjackson

James,

Your definition of force and mass are very good and agreeable insofar as they are descriptive of behavioural properties; Cause and resistance to acceleration.

In the DFM the cause for both is dynamic, both based on orbital angular momentum (you recall I discussed gyroscopics). This may be intuitive for the 'resistance' half but is less so for the 'accelerative' half. In that case we must imagine ourselves changing frames to the rest frame of the entity which imparts the force. We can now envisage our original mass approaching and interacting. Now we have the quality linear momentum to make a quantitative comparison between two orbital momenta energies. the rule is simple; The BIGGER one accelerates less on interaction as a function of relative embedded energy (we're assuming a case of bound matter where absorption does not occur). The effect on the electric field of each particle is a distortion. I'm not sure how much of that you agree with.

The bit the DFM disagrees with is "acceleration" of EM waves (light), because quantized changes of speed is different to acceleration. It will certainly LOOK LIKE acceleration from far enough off, but I find a better discernment is required to unravel that confused knotty mess. You may consider the point semantic and you'd be part right as there is no one word to describe this 'staged additivity' of speed. The difference is that in all cases between each interaction the propagation speed remains c.

As I consider this solution belongs to nature (and also to Friedman's equations ref varying vacuum permittivity as my post above) I have no issue with you adopting any of it at all, but if you see any reason why you think it incorrect do identify.

The last matter, energy, is of course also frame dependent in the DFM, which is all about discerning between effects from different observer frames. A non accelerating truck and you, also at rest in your own frame, will still have a major crash and undergo acceleration if your rest frames are in co-motion! It seems that really does require a new fundamental way of looking at things!

Peter

James Putnam

While theory can proceed forward at anytime by simply inventing substitutes to serve in the place of the unknown, nature didn't leave gaps in the operation of the universe to be filled in later by humans. We can learn that which empirical evidence makes known to us by avoiding closing that door. The door closes as a result of allowing theoretical inventions to enter into physics equations. The means by which the door can remain open is explained in this message which I repeat again below:

James Putnam

The speed of light varies. It varies everywhere. Practically speaking, it is never exactly the same magnitude anywhere in the universe. It has its maximum value of C in the hypothetical vacuum of free space. Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction. The same measuring rod varies in length everywhere if observed from a remote perspective and yet always appears to be the same constant length locally everywhere.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction."

No. Length contraction and time dilation are observer dependent relativistic effects, not physically real independent phenomena.

James Putnam

Tom,

""Locally, the speed of light always measures as C everywhere. That results from the existence of length contraction.""

"No. Length contraction and time dilation are observer dependent relativistic effects, not physically real independent phenomena. "

Within a gravitational field: Length contraction exists everywhere; The speed of light varies; Time dilation exists nowhere.

This is not special relativity. That theory fails in a gravitational field except for one special case. The theory doesn't acknowledge this, but, it mimics a circumstance where there are say two observers with relative velocities, both having identical gravitational fields that do not change or vary with distance or otherwise. In that case, and that case only, both observers will correctly see the other undergoing equivalent length contraction and equivalent slowing of processes. The effects, if such a circumstance actually existed, would be real physical effects. Both observers would continue to measure the speed of light locally as C resulting in no awareness of the changes they have undergone.

The above circumstance does not exist in a varying gravitation field. For an observer having a velocity with respect to, parallel to, and close to the surface of the Earth, the observer will undergo length contraction and a slowing of their processes. Those effects will be real whether anyone is watching or not. The Earth will not undergo length contraction or slowing of processes. The traveling observer will see the Earth as expanding, the opposite of length contraction. That effect will not be real. It will be only a visual effect resulting from the traveling observer's measuring rod having undergone length contraction.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Within a gravitational field: Length contraction exists everywhere; The speed of light varies; Time dilation exists nowhere."

James -- no. The gravitational field has nothing to do with it. The phenomena result from aysmmetric measurements of time-distance between observers in relative motion.

James Putnam

Tom,

"---no. The gravitational field has nothing to do with it. The phenomena result from aysmmetric measurements of time-distance between observers in relative motion."

This is not special relativity. It is modified general relativity after being corrected with a variable speed of light and no time dilation. I am not trying to instruct you about how to understand special relativity. That mystical world is part of theoretical physics.

I am speaking about how relativity type effects occur after correcting physics with a defined mass. A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it"

I don't see how, but go on.

James Putnam

""A relative velocity through a gravitation field has everything to do with it""

"I don't see how, but go on."

You do not see how because you are working with a theoretical physics that has missing parts. One of those missing parts is a definition for mass. You are working with an indefinable mass. You are working without knowing what mass is. Energy is 'defined' in terms of mass. Mass is not defined. Writing E = m without units demonstrates the lengths to which theoretical physics must distort itself in order to appear to represent reality. You say to 'go on', but, you don't follow. You accept a theoretical physics that is very dependent upon the property of mass and yet continues to develop itself without knowing what mass is. Whether or not my defined mass is correct is not the issue. The issue is that physics cannot proceed passed f=ma without defining mass except by institutionalizing fundamental disunity as foundational for theoretical physics.

James Putnam,

Thomas Ray

"Writing E = m without units demonstrates the lengths to which theoretical physics must distort itself in order to appear to represent reality."

James, you seem to have this idea that 'units' are something out there in 'reality,' some real thing that you can touch and hold. Fact is, units are just numbers, and there is no 'pi in the sky' as John Barrow puts it.

We invent units for our purposes. Nature doesn't care.

"You say to 'go on', but, you don't follow."

It's here that I have to heed my mother's advice: "If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off, too?"

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Ok, you see a cliff and don't want to leap off of it as I have done, right? Instead of this remark, what you are really saying is that you do not agree that mass must be a defined property. Should mass be a defined property or not?

Units are not numbers. Units are each a standard of measurement by which the existence of properties is recognized and represented in physics equations. Numbers are those figures that proceed in front of units. But you know that. I think that your response is in keeping with the lengths that theoretical physics will go to distorting itself in order to appear to represent reality.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Should mass be a defined property or not?"

This seems to be important to you. It's not important to me, and it certainly isn't essential to doing physics. At the end of the day, we don't know what anything "is." Our definitions suit our convenience, not nature's.

"Units are not numbers."

Yes they are.

"Units are each a standard of measurement by which the existence of properties is recognized and represented in physics equations."

We invented the standards, James. Not nature.

"Numbers are those figures that proceed in front of units."

Do you really think this makes sense?

James Putnam

""Units are not numbers.""

"Yes they are."

Ok, I will pull teeth one at a time.

No they are not numbers. Kilogram is not a number. A kilogram will react to gravity. Meter is not a number. A meter has length. What numbers are they? I am not asking about what numbers are in front of them. This is about explaining what units are. They are not numbers. What numbers are they to you?

James Putnam

""Units are each a standard of measurement by which the existence of properties is recognized and represented in physics equations.""

"We invented the standards, James. Not nature."

So what? I am having to explain that it is units that represent physics properties in physics equations. In order for physics properties to be correctly represented in physics equations, their units must be correct. Units can be either defined or indefinable. It was correct for physicists to accept both length and time as indefinable properties and to assign indefinable units to represent them in physics equations. Was it correct for physicists to assign indefinable units to represent mass in physics equations?

James Putnam

Tom,

""Should mass be a defined property or not?""

"This seems to be important to you. It's not important to me, and it certainly isn't essential to doing physics. At the end of the day, we don't know what anything "is." Our definitions suit our convenience, not nature's."

You mean that it is not essential to do theoretical physics. That is true. Theoretical physics fills in blanks by inventing substitutes to fill in for the unknown. Physics needs a defined mass as essential to understanding that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. In order to define a property one must make use of guidance from empirical evidence.

Theoretical physics did not take guidance from empirical evidence when it introduced mass into physics equations. By making mass an indefinable property, theoretical physicists introduced an unempirical invention into physics equations. Physics equations, from that point on, became forced to serve theorists. No later steps can make up for that first mistake. The only fix that can work is to go back and define mass. Mass can be defined by taking our lead from the empirical evidence from which the existence of mass was inferred. Go back and fix f = ma. (Yes, I already did.)

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"In order to define a property one must make use of guidance from empirical evidence."

James, if you don't understand by now that if what you say were true, we would still be doing science according to Aristotle, I suppose you never will.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

In order to make clear to other readers that your following statement is an opinion of a theorist:

"James, if you don't understand by now that if what you say were true, we would still be doing science according to Aristotle, I suppose you never will."

I repeat: Physicists must take their guidance from the empirical evidence in order to learn that which empirical evidence is making known to us. The other alternative is to allow theorists to inject their inventions into physics equations. The first such invention to be injected into a physics equation was to make disunity a fundamental part of physics.

That mistake follows directly from arbitrarily declaring mass to be an indefinable property. Both mass and force must be defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence is inferred. The equations of physics, and, especially the properties represented in them, will then remain justified by, and subservient to, the patterns observed in empirical evidence.

The chosen route of arbitrarily making mass an indefinable property resulted in turning the equations of physics into theoretical devices. Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in the place of the unknown. The empirical direction for defining mass was available. Physicists did not recognize it, and, instead made mass a theoretical property by declaring it to be a fundamental indefinable property having indefinable units.

That indefinable status is a theoretical guess that was wrong. The fundamental disunity that it brought with it is wrong. Both force and mass could have been and should have been defined properties. A defined property is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units.

The pre-existing properties are length and time. The pre-existing units are meters and seconds. Corrections to mass and force have been carried out by me. The immediate benefit is that fundamental unity has ben regained and is represented in each physics equation beginning with f=ma.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The pre-existing properties are length and time. The pre-existing units are meters and seconds."

Nature didn't create meters and seconds.

Thomas Ray

"... an opinion of a theorist:"

Theory is the only means of having a valid scientific opinion, as distinct from a "just so" Aristotelian narrative.

James Putnam

Me: "The pre-existing properties are length and time. The pre-existing units are meters and seconds."

Tom: "Nature didn't create meters and seconds."

My response: Of course not. We created them because there were no units before them by which they could be defined. They are the first units by virtue of their being the units of empirical evidence. When we consider units for mass and force the circumstance has changed. The existence of both force and mass are inferred to exist by the patterns observed in the empirical evidence. We should continue following the lead of that empirical evidence to have direction for defining units for both force and mass. Meters and seconds are pre-existing units by which the units of mass and force may be defined.

James Putnam

Tom: "Theory is the only means of having a valid scientific opinion, as distinct from a "just so" Aristotelian narrative."

Taking direction from empirical evidenced is not a 'just so' narrative. All real relevant information that is needed is provided by empirical evidence. Each equation formed in this fashion is revealing information that comes directly from empirical evidence.

Since theory is not interjected into the equations, then, theory is not needed to interpret the equations. There is no need to have a theorist explain the meaning of their invented properties, because, they don't get the chance to invent properties.

The arbitrary indefinable properties of theoretical physics do not become embedded into the equations. The empirical approach fills in all properties naturally. Each property, except for the first two naturally indefinable empirical properties, is a defined property right from the time it makes its first appearance in a physics equation.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, I realize you've created a self-consistent narrative of the physical world that suits you, and that's fine. Enjoy it. Its objective value, however, is nil. There is no way to *objectively* evaluate empirical information except by theory.

In order to be shown right, one must offer up a theory that is capable of being shown wrong. There's no royal road to truth.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom: "James, I realize you've created a self-consistent narrative of the physical world that suits you, and that's fine. Enjoy it. Its objective value, however, is nil. There is no way to *objectively* evaluate empirical information except by theory."

Me: The choice is invent or discover. The theoretical path is one of invention. Taking direction only from empirical evidence is one of discovery. By way of correction: "There is no way to *objectively* evaluate empirical information except by theory." should read: 'There is no way to objectively evaluate theoretical physics equations except by theory.'

Physics equation are not naturally theoretical. They are naturally empirical. An empirical physics equations is one that contains nothing other than what empirical evidence reveals to us. The evidence that this path is being successfully followed is that all properties, after the two original empirical properties of length and time, are defined properties. Their identities are formed only from the terms in which their empirical evidence is expressed.

A defined property is defined in the same terms as its empirical evidence is expressed. As a counter example, kilograms is not defined in the same terms as its empirical evidence is expressed. Kilograms is invented with no past. It came into existence abruptly when the theorists invented it. It is not expressible in any terms that came before it.

The property of mass is not expressible in terms of any property that came before it. Contrary to this there is the stark example of the opposite effort taken immediately afterwards in the case of force. Force is 'defined' in terms of mass, length, and time. Unfortunately for force and for physics, force is 'defined' using the artificially indefinable property of mass.

It can be easily judged when physics has been returned to an empirical basis. The evidence for this is that there are no indefinable properties in physics equations other than the two original properties of empirical evidence, length and time. Since properties are represented only by their units in physics equations, the direct evidence that physics equations have been returned to an empirical basis is that all units are defined units except for the units of the two original properties of empirical evidence.

The only two units that will appear naturally as fundamental indefinable units are those of length and time, presently meters and seconds. All other units appearing in physics equation will have definitions that are formed from combinations of meters and seconds only.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, the equations *are* the theory. A theory is merely a closed logical judgement. One can *only* make a closed logical judgment in a formal language -- never by empirical means.

James Putnam

Tom,

"James, the equations *are* the theory. A theory is merely a closed logical judgement. One can *only* make a closed logical judgment in a formal language -- never by empirical means."

But they don't have to be the theory and shouldn't be the theory. Theorists aren't needed for equations that come directly out of empirical evidence collected by experiment. Theorists are needed to explain how they filled in gaps of knowledge with invented properties resulting from guesses about how to proceed when empirical knowledge is lacking.

The equations I use do not contain theory and do not need theorists to explain them. Theorists are needed to invent fixes that help bridge problems they created by their earlier guesses. The solution is to go back and fill in the blanks by taking direction from empirical evidence. Those latter fixes are then unnecessary. If the inventions don't begin, then, more inventions are not needed to cover over early mistakes.

The earliest mistake was to make mass an indefinable property. A later mistake was to make temperature an indefinable property. Their empirical definitions don't involve theory and don't need theorists to explain them. Giving both mass and temperature their natural empirical led definitions make those later fixes by theorists unnecessary.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"But they (equations) don't have to be the theory and shouldn't be the theory."

Yes they are. And they have to be.

One cannot make a closed logical judgment on empirical evidence. Not possible, because the properties (the "isness") of anything is infinite. One does not capture infinity in finite symbols.

One does, however, find that if a = b and b = c, a = c. That truth can only correspond to physical phenomena by choosing what physics one wishes to express and communicate. There is no better description of science than that of Jacob Bronowski: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

Thomas Ray

James, if you still think you need to know what mass is to do physics, take a tip from Feynman: "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

James Putnam

Tom and Edwin,

"One cannot make a closed logical judgment on empirical evidence. Not possible, because the properties (the "isness") of anything is infinite. One does not capture infinity in finite symbols.

The above appears to be true for an understandable reason. No physicists since Newton's time has ever worked with physics equations that did not contain theory. Physicists are trained on theoretical equations. That does not have to be the case. Physics can return to its original state of discovering that which empirical evidence is communicating to us, and, not what theorists have guessed should be communicated to us.

There may have been physicists in the past who tried to be free of theory, I don't know. The only physicist, that I am aware of, who is working directly from empirical evidence without inventing added on theoretical properties is Edwin Klingman.

Dr. Klingman's work has been presented in these essay contests. His work could have been recognized as both a return to empirical learning and real advancement in understanding the full nature of the universe.

The science community of physicists needs to look away from theoretical hidden likenesses and look instead at the natural understanding existing in front of us that comes from beginning and staying with only that which empirical evidence reveals to us. The hiding needs to stop. Properties must be falsifiable by direct experimentation.

Properties such as space and time, are not available for us to experiment on. We do not prove the existence of sspacetime by observing the motions of objects. The motions of objects tell us about the objects. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocity of objcts.

I am speaking as if the mechanical interpretation of the universe presented to us by theoretical physics was real. Obviously, the universe is not run by dumb mechanical properties. Physics has been the science of providing mechanical solutions to mechanical properties.

In the future, a great deal of important looking parts of theoretical physics, including some 'fundamental forces', will be done away with. Those parts were artificial all along, That is the stuff that theory consists of.

The first error to return and fix is to make mass a defined property by accepting the lead provided for us by the empirical evidence whose patterns are modeled mathematically by Newton's f=ma.

Edwin Klingman is invited to correct and clarify those statements I made about his work.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"No physicists since Newton's time has ever worked with physics equations that did not contain theory"

Nor any before Newton's time, either.

"There may have been physicists in the past who tried to be free of theory, I don't know."

Yes -- Aristotle!

James Putnam

Tom,

"James, if you still think you need to know what mass is to do physics, take a tip from Feynman: "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.""

One does not need to know what mass is to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to know what electric charge is to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to know what temperature is to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to know what thermodynamic entropy is to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to define properties to do theoretical physics.

One does not need fundamental unity to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to take their lead directly from empirical evidence to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to know the reasons for the birth of intelligent life to do theoretical physics.

One does not need to know what the real fundamental properties of this life bearing universe are in order to do theoretical physics.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, I don't know what led you down this path of self deception -- to some belief that the physical world can be objectively explained without theory. It isn't theoretical physics, though, that blocks your understanding. "Theoretical physics" isn't some "thing" or cloak that disguises the truth of nature; it is the language by which we describe the fundamental relations of nature that underlie that truth.

If it were simply the case that things are as they appear, one would have no use for physics at all, much less theoretical physics. That would also put us on an intellectual level with amoebae, and we would have no chance for the singularly human experience of participating in our own evolution.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

Ok, I understand that you do not understand:

"James, I don't know what led you down this path of self deception -- to some belief that the physical world can be objectively explained without theory. It isn't theoretical physics, though, that blocks your understanding. "Theoretical physics" isn't some "thing" or cloak that disguises the truth of nature; it is the language by which we describe the fundamental relations of nature that underlie that truth."

Just so that any other readers are not misled by your statement: Theoretical physics does limit our understanding of the universe by accepting blanks in physics equations. The blanks are disguised by filling them in with human inventions. The patterns of empirical evidence are modeled mathematically and it is those patterns that provide predictive power. The patterns and the predictions do not protect us from false understanding. The path that must be followed for understanding is to learn that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. Empirical evidence does not reveal theory. Equations formed by following the lead of empirical evidence do not need theory and, in fact, do not include theory.

I repeat an earlier message of mine that explains how to develop physics equations by following the lead of empirical evidence:

"That story begins with making both mass and force defined properties instead of arbitrarily choosing one to be a fundamental indefinable property. Nature has already made its own choices about force and mass. Nature did not leave that decision for us to make.

To be continued in my next message.

James Putnam

Continued from my previous message:

"While theory can proceed forward at anytime by simply inventing substitutes to serve in the place of the unknown, nature didn't leave gaps in the operation of the universe to be filled in later by humans. We can learn that which empirical evidence makes known to us by avoiding closing that door. The door closes as a result of allowing theoretical inventions to enter into physics equations. The means by which the door can remain open is explained in this message which I repeat again below:

To be continued in my next message.

James Putnam

Continued from my previous message:

"The choice is invent or discover. The theoretical path is one of invention. Taking direction only from empirical evidence is one of discovery. By way of correction: "There is no way to *objectively* evaluate empirical information except by theory." should read: 'There is no way to objectively evaluate theoretical physics equations except by theory.'

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Just so that any other readers are not misled by your statement: Theoretical physics does limit our understanding of the universe by accepting blanks in physics equations. The blanks are disguised by filling them in with human inventions."

Blanks are human inventions.

James Putnam

Now evidence of how theory blocks understanding:

What is the theoretical physics explanation for the presence of C2 in E = mC2?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Now evidence of how theory blocks understanding:

What is the theoretical physics explanation for the presence of C2 in E = mC2"

The constant to measure conversion of rest mass-energy to kinetic energy.

James Putnam

"Now evidence of how theory blocks understanding:

What is the theoretical physics explanation for the presence of C2 in E = mC2"

Tom: "The constant to measure conversion of rest mass-energy to kinetic energy."

Tom, You already know that I have great respect for your intelligence, broad scope of knowledge, and mathematical skills. I even said that I think you are ahead of the theorists. I still say that. I don't understand why your essays do not receive recognition by the judges year after year. I appreciate your willingness to respond to my messages. I think though that in this case, I should make an effort to attract a response by a theoretical physicist. I know that there will probably be no response, but the question I asked goes right to the heart of their weakness.

I want my discussion to count for something if possible. Our discussing it will not be fruitful. Your response was the weak one that exposes the lack of understanding of that equation even by theoretical physicists. That is the normal response from theoretical physicist. Maybe no physicist will respond, but I want to publicly try for a response. I will now and then repeat my question here in my thread and maybe stir up a formal response by a theoretical physicist. More than one would be better. In the meantime, I want to wait before publicly tackling the physical meaning of E=mC2 by theoretical physicists. I want to save my ammunition while waiting.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Your response was the weak one that exposes the lack of understanding of that equation even by theoretical physicists."

You're kidding right?

James Putnam

[What is the meaning of the appearance of the speed of light in E=mC2?]

Gathering a few points made in another forum and putting them here in my thread.

E = m is not a physics equation. This is made clear by its lack of units. It is a statement that represents the position of theoretical physics that the appearance of C2 in E = mC2 is simply one of the role of a proportionality constant. That constant can be made equal to unity and therefore, E = m appears. The equation E = m has no units.

The equation E = mC2 does have units. The speed of light has units. Changing the magnitude of the speed of light to unity does not do away with its units. So when E = m is presented, it has no units for either E or m. The units can't be filled in without showing the units for the speed of light squared. That is why E = m is not a physics equation and does not clarify the relationship between energy and mass. It is a pretend equation that serves to mislead.

The units of E = mC2 are:

Joules = kilograms*(meters/sec)2

That meters/sec represents the velocity of light. Light is the property that delivers empirical evidence to us. It does far more than that. It is the most important property in the universe. Its presence in the equation is of the highest importance to understand. It cannot be smudged away as is done with E = m. The appearance...

That is enough for now.

James Putnam

Tom,

""Your response was the weak one that exposes the lack of understanding of that equation even by theoretical physicists.""

"You're kidding right?"

No I am not kidding. I could have made that same remark to you when you presented E = m. It is hard to believe that theoretical physics has reached the point that it and you could put forward that pretend equation in all seriousness.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

" ... you presented E = m. It is hard to believe that theoretical physics has reached the point that it and you could put forward that pretend equation in all seriousness."

James, one does not have to be a professional physicist to know that the equivalence of energy to mass is exactly what Einstein's equation means. The speed of light term is only the standard by which a measured amount of rest energy is related to an equivalent amount of kinetic energy You're looking kind of silly here.

Thomas Ray

"Light is the property that delivers empirical evidence to us. It does far more than that. It is the most important property in the universe. Its presence in the equation is of the highest importance to understand. It cannot be smudged away as is done with E = m."

James, light doesn't appear in Einstein's equation.

James Putnam

Tom,

I do understand that progress will not be made. That is why I feel I must go to the source. Lets see, as days or weeks pass, if a theoretical physics will contribute.

""Light is the property that delivers empirical evidence to us. It does far more than that. It is the most important property in the universe. Its presence in the equation is of the highest importance to understand. It cannot be smudged away as is done with E = m.""

"James, light doesn't appear in Einstein's equation."

E = m((C2))!!

Properties are represented by their units. It is light that is putting its velocity to use to make E = mC2[/sup}into an equation. Actually there is more to it than that. But we are working with Einstein's equation. It is Einstein's equation that contains C2 and the role that the velocity of light squared plays must be explained. A true proportionality constant has no units because it is just a number. In E = m you reduced the number to unity which is ok but you were stuck with the units and hid them from view.

You wanted to claim that mass is energy and so you fudge a pretend equation that makes it look like there is mathematics to support your claim. I know you are putting forward the view of theoretical physics. A theoretical physicist would have put that same pretend equation on a chalkboard in front of students and let it look like it was real.

They would let it look like units do not matter. They would let it look like physics is a numbers game. Well here is something you are stuck with: Joules are not kilograms. That is as far as I am going to go at this time. I do appreciate your participation, but, this particular subject is for theoretical physicists to defend.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"E = m((C2))!!"

Even without the exclamation marks, the constant term is just a measurement standard. Is light identical to the speed of light? -- if you argued that, I would (no sarcasm implied) find it interesting.

Thomas Ray

" ... this particular subject is for theoretical physicists to defend."

They're not going to tell you different than I. This is standard textbook stuff that you get without a degree.

James Putnam

Tom,

"" ... this particular subject is for theoretical physicists to defend.""

"They're not going to tell you different than I. This is standard textbook stuff that you get without a degree."

I know. And I understand about textbooks. You now point to textbooks and I am supposed to be impressed? I pointed to textbooks and you 'knew' better than to rely upon textbook information. The fact remains that theoretical physics cannot explain the physical event described by E=m2. I don't think they can continue to live with that.

They can predict how mass will change and how much energy will change, but, they cannot explain why. The patterns that they have designed their equations to mimic are giving us the correct numerical answers, but, they cannot explain why mass can be converted to energy. They cannot explain the role played by light. They cannot live with joules = kilograms.

It is their job to give the underlying physical explanation. I think there must be some who will feel compelled to do their job in this regard. They are intelligent and highly skilled, but, they cannot leave E=mc2 unexplained. I am referring to the physical meanings and roles played by each term in that equation.

This is not going to be shooed away.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I pointed to textbooks and you 'knew' better than to rely upon textbook information."

No, you pointed to *one* textbook. What we are talking about is well understood in over 100 years of literature.

I don't care about shooing away anything other than misinformation.

James Putnam

Tom,

"No, you pointed to *one* textbook. What we are talking about is well understood in over 100 years of literature."

Are you claiming that what Sears and Zemansky taught on the first page of their college physics text was not well understood? Are you claiming that it was not well understood for over a hundred years? One more thing. My reference was not good enough because it was only one right?? How many texts are good enough??

Your modern texts cover the same subject but disguise it without success by differentiating between 'primary' properties and 'secondary' properties. That close but not exact representation cannot cover for the misuse of 'defined' properties and 'indefinable' properties in theoretical physics.

"I don't care about shooing away anything other than misinformation."

Then you should refrain from presenting E = m.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Are you claiming that what Sears and Zemansky taught on the first page of their college physics text was not well understood?"

No James, it's simply that you don't understand it. You need to correlate what you think you know from this single source, with other sources. You have misinterpreted to suit your prior beliefs.

" ... you should refrain from presenting E = m."

James, that is merely what the result means, and you can find it explained that way by many others, though one shouldn't find it necessary, for such a simple equation.

Thomas Ray

James, anti-Einstein cranks -- and I sincerely hope you don't wander any further into that abyss of ignorance -- have hurled all they've got at special relativity since the beginning, and nothing sticks. The theory is complete and true.

Consider those early researchers who got the constant of proportionality (which is 1, and gives E = m) wrong, and why:

"What Hasenöhrl really missed in his calculation was the idea that if the radiators in his cavity are emitting radiation, they must be losing mass, so his calculation wasn't consistent", says Rothman. 'Nevertheless, he got half of it right. If he had merely said that E is proportional to m, history would probably have been kinder to him.'"

Best,

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

What nonsense!!

"No James, it's simply that you don't understand it. You need to correlate what you think you know from this single source, with other sources. You have misinterpreted to suit your prior beliefs."

What nonsense!! You were the one who did not understand. You said mass was defined. You put that circular equation f/a=m forward as the definition of mass.

Now to repair the damage you continue to cause here in my thread. Here, for readers is what I quoted from Sears and Zemansky, College Physics. Here is what I did understand and that Tom did not and still does not understand. Here is what I tried but failed to help him understand:

Chapter 1, page 1: "1-1The 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 can 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."

Me: Still today, physicists do not know what mass is. This deficiency is clearly seen from their retention of the fundamentally indefinable units of kilograms. Mass was given the indefinable units of kilograms because, in theoretical physics, mass is an indefinable property. Physicists cannot explain the physical basis for the equation E=-mc2 because they do not know what mass is. This ignorance was not necessary. Mass should have been defined. Both mass and force could have been defined properties. I have defined mass for physicists. I went back to f=ma and let the empirical evidence of 'a' lead the way in showing how to define mass. Both mass and force are now defined properties. There was a second artificially indefinable property belonging to thermodynamics. It is temperature. Temperature is also now a defined property. There are no longer any artificial fundamental indefinable properties. Only the two naturally indefinable properties of length and time remain. Physics can now be redone from the beginning with those blanks filled in.

James Putnam

Tom,

More nonsense!!

Tom: "James, anti-Einstein cranks -- and I sincerely hope you don't wander any further into that abyss of ignorance -- have hurled all they've got at special relativity since the beginning, and nothing sticks. The theory is complete and true."

This thread is not about wandering off in your "abyss of ignorance'. It is about fixing physics. That fix includes fixing Relativity theory. Physics is not yet complete. Physics is not yet true. And, no theory in it is complete and true so long as physics is not. Relativity theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence. There is no experimental evidence for it. The reason is obvious. Neither space nor time are available for us to experiment on. All empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. We only learn that which objects do. Neither space nor time have been shown to have velocities let alone changes of velocities. The logical basis put forward in support of Relativity theory is invented. It is a model.

Tom: "Consider those early researchers who got the constant of proportionality (which is 1, and gives E = m) wrong, and why:

Tom, you consider this: E = m is not a physics equation. That was the relevant point that needed to be made so that it would not mislead others. I am not misled by it. Furthermore, I am not misled into believing that physicists or you can explain the physical basis for the equation E=mc2. The reason I am not misled is because I understand that neither the physicists nor you know what mass is. You can't explain what you do not know. I hope you don't wander off into believing that you can explain it.

James Putnam

The choice is invent or discover. The theoretical path is one of invention. Taking direction only from empirical evidence is one of discovery. Physics equations are not naturally theoretical. They are naturally empirical. An empirical physics equation is one that contains nothing other than what empirical evidence reveals to us. The evidence that this path is being successfully followed is that all properties, after the two original empirical properties of length and time, are defined properties. Their identities are formed only from the terms in which their empirical evidence is expressed.

James Putnam

Brendan Foster

I respectfully request that the word 'nonsense' be avoided.

James Putnam

Thank you Brendan. I have on occasion spoke too quickly and later saw fit to apologize. In this case I should have simply used the word inaccurate. I apologize to Tom. I recognize Tom as very intelligent, knowledgeable and skilled in areas where I am not.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The property of mass is not expressible in terms of any property that came before it."

Sure it is. You've already acknowledged the necessary fundamentals that precede the creation of mass:

"The only two units that will appear naturally as fundamental indefinable units are those of length and time, presently meters and seconds."

That is, space and time.

I'll be careful about using the "n word" in the future, as well.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

From Sears and Zemansky: "The property of mass is not expressible in terms of any property that came before it."

Tom: "Sure it is. You've already acknowledged the necessary fundamentals that precede the creation of mass:

Tom quoting me: "The only two units that will appear naturally as fundamental indefinable units are those of length and time, presently meters and seconds."

Me now in response: I made this known. It was believed and remains believed in the physics community that that quote remains correct. I say that both mass and force can be defined, but, not in terms of spacetime. The definition of mass, as I have previously presented it, and the theory of spacetime are incompatible.

Tom: "That is, space and time."

Me in response: Length is not space. Length is a measurement that takes place in space. Space has no units nor any discernible properties other than giving us room to move around in. Time, as represented in physics equations, is not a property of time. It is duration. Duration is a measurement that occurs as ticks repeated as accurately as we can get. Those ticks and the space between them are not the property of time. We can change those ticks. We can alter those gaps or spaces. In fact we are always inaccurate. Time is not inaccurate. It cannot be shown to be inaccurate.

Neither space nor time are affected by my defining mass. Physics is affected. The theory of spacetime is affected, but, there is no evidence and never has been evidence that defining mass would be akin to taking hold of either space or time. Length and duration are our weak imitations of measuring space and time.

Tom: "I'll be careful about using the "n word" in the future, as well."

Me: To quote Shane "You had me snortin' son." I don't care if I am called crackpot or ignorant or wrong. What was annoying was that, to undo what was implied in your claim, I had to dig up that quote and type in again for no reason other than to show that you misrepresented me. I did understand that quote. I presented for your benefit. If you don't accept it that is understood. Please don't claim that I don't understand it. Sears and Zemansky were saying what has commonly believed to be correct out of necessity.

My position is that mass remains currently officially an undefined property. That means that no one can explain what mass is except in circular arguments. I introduced the idea that they could both be defined. Here is what I say and have said repeatedly. Both force and mass should have been and could have been defined, in the same terms as the empirical evidence from which their existences are inferred is expressed. Those terms are length and time (duration). Their units are meters and seconds.

Mass is definable in terms of length and time. The units of mass are definable as a combination of the units of meters and seconds. I repeat that I am speaking about meters and seconds neither of which can affect either space or time. I am not asking you to approve or agree with this statement. Its purpose is to accurately restate my position. It remains my position. There is a possibility someone else may read this stuff.

Please go ahead and disagree for your own reasons. If you think that I don't understand that quote, then please support your claim by giving your counter understanding of that quote. The time frame was that the substance of that quote and its acceptance by the physics community existed before, during, after, and presently alongside the theory of Relativity and all other theories. Thank you.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Length and duration are our weak imitations of measuring space and time."

And yet you say metres (length) and seconds (duration) are the only defined properties in physics. What are aiming at, a super-weak imitation?

And I shot you straight, on what "The property of mass is not expressible in terms of any property that came before it" means. You can ask Sears or Zemanaky if one or both is still alive, and one or both will tell you that all matter is made of mostly empty space, and that its properties depend on its changing configuration in time.

"My position is that mass remains currently officially an undefined property. That means that no one can explain what mass is except in circular arguments."

All logic is tautology, James. Every definition is circular. It's what enables us to make logically closed judgments from which theories are built. Only the correspondence of those judgments to real physical phenomena informs us of what is physical.

James Putnam

Tom quoting me: "Length and duration are our weak imitations of measuring space and time."

Tom: "And yet you say metres (length) and seconds (duration) are the only defined properties in physics. What are aiming at, a super-weak imitation?"

Me responding: I do not say meters and seconds are the only defined units in physics. I do not say that length and duration are the only defined properties in physics. What I do say is that length and duration are naturally indefinable properties. What I do say is that meters and seconds are naturally indefinable units. What I do say is that meters and seconds are the only units that are permissible to be included as indefinable units in physics equations.

Tom: "And I shot you straight, on what "The property of mass is not expressible in terms of any property that came before it" means. You can ask Sears or Zemanaky if one or both is still alive, and one or both will tell you that all matter is made of mostly empty space, and that its properties depend on its changing configuration in time."

I did ask Sears and Zemansky by virtue of buying their book off the Internet and quoting from it. They said that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. All matter is known only by its properties that result in patterns in changes of velocities. Any and all of those properties must be defined in terms of length and duration or they are left artificially indefinable. Length is not space. Length is measured by our holding something up in space. Duration is not time. Duration is measured by our clocks. The measuring rod is not space. The clock is not time. The measuring rod exists in space. the clock ticks during the passing of time.

Tom quoting me: "My position is that mass remains currently officially an undefined property. That means that no one can explain what mass is except in circular arguments."

Tom: "All logic is tautology, James. Every definition is circular. It's what enables us to make logically closed judgments from which theories are built. Only the correspondence of those judgments to real physical phenomena informs us of what is physical."

The indefinable statuses of length and time in physics equations are not circular.

The correspondence between theories that are modeled to fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence and those very patterns in empirical evidence does not inform us of what is physical. The correspondence only informs us that we have done well in matching the forms of the equations of our model with the patterns observed in empirical evidence. The correspondence does not inform us that our choices of properties, that we put into our equations, are physical.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"What I do say is that meters and seconds are the only units that are permissible to be included as indefinable units in physics equations."

Oh, okay. So you define mass in terms of those indefinable units?

What does that mean?

James Putnam

""What I do say is that meters and seconds are the only units that are permissible to be included as indefinable units in physics equations.""

"Oh, okay. So you define mass in terms of those indefinable units?

What does that mean? "

It means that mass is a defined property. It is a defined property because it is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It means that kilograms is a defined unit. It is a defined unit because it is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Do the same with 'degrees' and all other physics equations will naturally continue to follow the lead given us by empirical evidence. It means that there will be no opportunity to put invented properties into physics equations. It means that the absence of artificial indefinable units means the absence of invented properties.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, try and define "pre-existing."

James Putnam

"James, try and define "pre-existing.""

There are simpler and more fundamental quantitites in terms of which 'B' may be expressed. Those simpler and more fundamental quantities pre-exist 'B'.

There are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which 'A' may be expressed. No quantity pre-exists 'A'. 'A' pre-exists all quantities that may be expressed in terms of 'A'.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

What differentiates A from B?

James Putnam

"What differentiates A from B?"

There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

James, an important mathematical theorem, called the Jordan curve theorem, divides the plane into two parts -- one finite, enclosed by the area of a curve, the other infinite.

You've tried to do the same with physics -- you have a well behaved finite part, which you wish to say is irreducible, and the rest is infinite. Why won't that work? -- the world is finite. You have no relation between A and B, only the sound of one hand clapping.

James Putnam

Tom quoting me: "There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

Retracing the history behind my statement:

Me: "...kilograms is a defined unit. It is a defined unit because it is defined in terms of pre-existing units."

Tom: "James, try and define "pre-existing.""

Me: "There are simpler and more fundamental quantitites in terms of which 'B' may be expressed. Those simpler and more fundamental quantities pre-exist 'B'.

There are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which 'A' may be expressed. No quantity pre-exists 'A'. 'A' pre-exists all quantities that may be expressed in terms of 'A'."

Tom: "What differentiates A from B?"

Me: "There are no quantities by which 'A' may be expressed. There are quantities by which 'B' may be expressed."

Each of my statements is correct physics.

The following is assumed to refer to my position that only length and time are proper indefinable properties:

Tom: "You have no relation between A and B, only the sound of one hand clapping."

There was no relation expressed. However, going along with what I think you are getting at:

If A is an object's acceleration and B is defined in terms of acceleration then that 'clapping hand' is acceleration and its units are those of acceleration.

If, in the case of f=ma, A is a for acceleration and B is m for mass, defined as an inverse acceleration, then B is defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence A. In other words, mass has defined units that consist of a combination of meters and seconds, the fundamental indefinable units of its empirical evidence.

James Putnam

Tom,

Putting my logic skills to work, here are example problems clarifying the meaning of 'pre-existing' :-)

Existing problem #1:

Before is before after.

After is after before.

Before' is before before.

Therefore, before is after before'.

After' is after after.

Therefore, after is before after'.

Proven: That before is after.

Proven: That after is before.

Existing problem #2:

Mickey is a mouse.

Minnie is a mouse.

A mouse is a mouse.

Proven: That Mickey is Minnie.

A pre-existing problem:

Returning to unfinished business concerning what is taught in a physics textbook. It needs to be confirmed that you do or do not agree that there are definable properties and indefinable properties in physics as described in the Sears and Zemansky quote? If you do not agree, then how would you write an alternative second paragraph? Please include your view as to whether or not mass is defined property or an undefined property? Nothing tricky here other than looking for firm answers that will permit us to move forward.

Quoting Sears and Zemansky; College Physics; Section one, Page one, paragraph two:

"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 indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics."

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Each of my statements is correct physics."

Prove it.

"If A is an object's acceleration and B is defined in terms of acceleration then that 'clapping hand' is acceleration and its units are those of acceleration."

Acceleration relative to what? You haven't (and have no means to) describe an object at rest.

"If, in the case of f=ma, A is a for acceleration and B is m for mass, defined as an inverse acceleration, then B is defined in the same terms as is its empirical evidence A."

That would give you E = m. As I have said.

Thomas Ray

"Proven: That before is after.

Proven: That after is before."

Therefore 0 = 1 (by which one can "prove" absolutely anything.)

"It needs to be confirmed that you do or do not agree that there are definable properties and indefinable properties in physics as described in the Sears and Zemansky quote?"

No, James, it needs to be confirmed that you know what that means. Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable. Physics definitions are operational, not formally logical.

"If you do not agree, then how would you write an alternative second paragraph? Please include your view as to whether or not mass is defined property or an undefined property? Nothing tricky here other than looking for firm answers that will permit us to move forward.

"Quoting Sears and Zemansky; College Physics; Section one, Page one, paragraph two:

"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."

That's really all you need to know. Because the definition is operational, the rules provide the means to construct a measurement framework. Without it, one cannot do physics at all.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"No, James, it needs to be confirmed that you know what that means. Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable. Physics definitions are operational, not formally logical."

I presume that you are saying that f=ma defines force and f\a=m defines mass? Also, "Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable." implies that your definition of define is not the physics definition of define. In physics define means to express in terms of pre-existing properties. Undefinable means there are no pre-existing properties by which a property or unit can be expressed. I understand you to be saying that to define something does not require it to be expressed in terms of pre-existing properties. in other words, one just needs a mathematical equation that can be solved for the property in question. For example f/a=m defines mass? Then, is it your view to say that no property or unit in physics is indefinable?

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

You know, it occurred to me that one of your logical syllogisms (which I assume you offered tongue in cheek) is exactly the way that many Joy Christian's falsely deduced that his correlation function is constant and equal to - 1.

"Mickey is a mouse.

Minnie is a mouse.

A mouse is a mouse.

Proven: That Mickey is Minnie."

Dichotomous variables even of the same class are not identities.

Thomas Ray

"I presume that you are saying that f=ma defines force and f\a=m defines mass?"

It doesn't matter what the terms stand for. The relation exactly corresponds to measurement.

"Also, 'Leaving terms undefined does not imply that that they are undefinable.' implies that your definition of define is not the physics definition of define. In physics define means to express in terms of pre-existing properties."

James, do you know what "operational" means?

Thomas Ray

James

James Putnam

Quoting from Tom's link: "3. The physical object we are measuring actually has a well-defined length."

I think I do understand. An operational definition is when one teaches that one has a well-defined property when one has an indefinable property? I will stick with the clear logic expressed in the Sears and Zemansky quote.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"It's the *same* logic, James. Remember what I told you about correlating information from independent sources?

James Putnam

Your source is not a source about defining length. It is source about how to measure length. The instructor is using define in the same loose way that you do. I used the physics definition of a defined property. Your source needs an interpreter to make sure that meanings are proper and clear.

James Putnam

Perhaps for some who might not have been certain, the difference between a definable property and an indefinable property has been made certain by referencing the hundreds of years old physics' explanation. Now, using that explanation, and beginning again to represent my work in my words:

In the equation f=ma there are three indefinable properties. They are mass, length, and time. One equation with three out of four properties that are undefined properties. The equation needs some new work done to it. The fix is naturally limited in its scope. That natural limitation is that length and time are fundamental indefinable properties and will always be so. They are the properties of empirical evidence. There are no properties before them. They are the first properties. There are no pre-existing properties by which to define them.

The 'fundamental indefinable' property that is not a first property is mass. It is not a first property because there are two properties, length and time, that pre-exist mass. The status of mass as a fundamental indefinable property began as an artificial status. That artificiality is made apparent by the fact that the choice could have been, with equal justification, either force of mass.

Nature made all of its choices itself. It did not leave choices about its properties to us to make for it. There is no justification for choosing either force or mass to be a fundamental indefinable property. Nature's choices for fundamental indefinable properties are length and time. That is why they are the properties of empirical evidence. From empirical evidence, consisting of the two properties length and time, we are informed by nature about all other properties of mechanics.

All other properties have to be defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence. If this restriction is not enforced, then we, not nature, have left openings for guesses. If the restriction is enforced, then the equations will function as tools for revealing that which nature is communicating to us through empirical evidence.

My work consists of enforcing that restriction and reforming the equations of physics devoid of the guesses that have accumulated as theoretical speculations. I begin with f=ma and define both force and mass in the terms in which their empirical evidence is expressed.

James Putnam

F=ma began its existence as an empirical equation. It began with the recognition that the empirical evidence of acceleration of objects tells us that, besides the empirical properties of length and time, there are two additional properties. One is the cause of the acceleration and the other is resistance to acceleration. We don't know what the cause of acceleration is but the equation symbolizes it with the letter F. We don't know what the cause of resistance to acceleration is, but, the equation symbolizes it with the letter m. The names chosen for them are force and mass.

We either find a way to define both mass and force using only properties of length and time or we must invent a fundamental indefinable status for one of them. It has not been known how to define both force and mass so the choice was, and remains, that mass would be arbitrarily be made a fundamental indefinable property.

Instead of allowing that evidence to show us what mass is, physicists told the equation that mass was a fundamental indefinable property. That theoretical decision was made a concrete part of the equation but assigning the indefinable units of kilograms to represent mass.

Kilograms are not defined units. There is no recognized pre-existing information supporting those units. They are abruptly brought into theoretical existence at the time they are inserted into f=ma. Kilograms are the only representation of mass in the equation. They are arbitrarily given equal 'first property unit' status joining with length's meters and time's seconds.

The loss incurred by making mass a fundamental indefinable property is that we cannot hope to explain what mass is so long as it remains undefined. The corrective action to be taken is to define both force and mass and to define their units. Then f=ma will have only nature's choices in it. It will naturally help reveal nature's definitions of physics properties.

Once mass is defined, then the definition of force follows. Force is definable in terms of mass, length and time, just as before, except, mass will be defined also. The first step in my work is to define mass. The interpretations of the rest of physics equations depend upon its existence.

James Putnam

Constantinos Ragazas

James,

I have been following your discussion re: 'mass' with interest. I agree 'mass' needs to be 'defined'. But it occurs to me any definition of 'mass' must then make 'gravity' emergent and allow for the derivation of Newton's Law of Gravity. How have you dealt with this issue of 'gravity' and the 'law of gravity' in your reformulation of physics?

Constantinos

James Putnam

Constantinos,

"I agree 'mass' needs to be 'defined'. But it occurs to me any definition of 'mass' must then make 'gravity' emergent and allow for the derivation of Newton's Law of Gravity. How have you dealt with this issue of 'gravity' and the 'law of gravity' in your reformulation of physics?"

Excellent! I wrote about this in my essay The variability of the Speed of Light for the 2012 contest. I'll read through it again in the morning and write a current reply. Thank you for your interest and question.

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo

James,

As I said before I agree with Constantinos that your discussion on mass points to something fundamental that is yet to be discovered and acknowledged. As Constantinos mentioned you have to include what gravity is and how it emerges. Is gravity a force ala Newton or a curvature in space ala Einstein or a union of the two? For Newton, space has no role to play, only the Mass of the objects and their distance apart. For Einstein space is a direct participant.

In your paper which I also just browsed through, you mentioned the speed of light in free space as the universal constant and in Eq.(8) you gave a useful equation which I have myself arrived at through a different way. However, while you have agreed that light speed can be varied and slowed by the presence of matter, you did not go further to use that equation to find what the value of the universal constant, C in free space will be.

Would you agree that the value of speed of light in free space is 299792458.2087m/s, which is slowed by earth gravity to the value 299792458m/s measured terrestrially? And if yes, that is what can rightly be called our universal constant.

Akinbo

James Putnam

Akinbo,

"In your paper which I also just browsed through, you mentioned the speed of light in free space as the universal constant and in Eq.(8) you gave a useful equation which I have myself arrived at through a different way. However, while you have agreed that light speed can be varied and slowed by the presence of matter, you did not go further to use that equation to find what the value of the universal constant, C in free space will be.

Would you agree that the value of speed of light in free space is 299792458.2087m/s, which is slowed by earth gravity to the value 299792458m/s measured terrestrially? And if yes, that is what can rightly be called our universal constant."

That equation is an approximation. I may not understand what you have done. I wouldn't use that equation to calculate the speed of light in free space. Also, since I say that the speed of light measures as the same constant locally everywhere, then the speed of light as measured on the Earth gives me the speed of light in free space. Now to avoid confusion, the measured speed of light on the Earth is not the same speed as the remote observer would calculate for the speed of light on the Earth.

The reason for the difference in the remote measurement and a local measurement has to do with length contraction at the surface of the Earth. Length is different for the remote observer. Length decreases with a decreasing speed of light. The remote observer's meter is larger than our contracted local meter.

I do say that the speed of light varies and slows as it approaches the Earth. I don't have values with enough significant digits to carry out this calculation:

vc = [(2.99792458 m/s)2 - 2(GME)/r ]1/2

Please notice that I use the locally measured speed of light, that I have, as C. The speed of light at the Earth's surface measured by an observer in free space would be less than that value. If I had values with enough significant digits, that equation would still calculate only an approximate value of the reduced speed of light at the surface of the Earth. It would still not have the accuracy that you report. Aside from my not having values with enough significant digits, the mass of the earth is not at its center. Do you see it differently?

James Putnam

Akinbo,

"What is vc in your equation and what is C?"

The vc is how I represent the variable speed of light. It appears regularly in my essay instead of a plain v. I assumed you saw and understood it from my essay. It is the speed of light, used in several of my equations, that a remote observer in free space would calculate for anywhere else who is not in free space.

""I do say that the speed of light varies and slows as it approaches the Earth""

"This implies it was faster."

Yes, the speed of light is faster in free space than on the Earth.

""I don't have values with enough significant digits to carry out this calculation""

"It does not matter at this stage, but C is higher than vc, whatever vc is."

Yes C has a greater magnitude than does vc everywhere that is not free space.

""Please notice that I use the locally measured speed of light, that I have, as C. The speed of light at the Earth's surface measured by an observer in free space would be less than that value"."

"How will an observer in free space measure speed of light at Earth surface from his remote location? It has to be deduced and confirmed experimentally by sending two-way signals from earth to free space and back, and then measuring the transit time taken compared to the distance to the free space location, if I may put it that way."

The measurement cannot be carried out physically by placing the measuring device between the remote observe and Earth. The speed of light varies and length varies. The measurement process that I refer to is the same as used for expressing measurements from an observer's perspective in special relativity.

The measurement is hypothetical. It represents that which the remote observer would measure if the remote observer could put their measuring stick at the surface of the Earth without that stick having undergone length contraction.

I stated that the speed of light measures as the same constant everywhere. That means that the measurement of the speed of light on the Earth is the same as the measurement of the speed of light in free space. That is why I use the Earth's local measurement of the speed of light as the magnitude of C. The locally measured speed of light on the Earth does not have the same magnitude as the variable speed of light on the Earth has. The variable speed of light vc on the Earth is the actual speed of light on the Earth.

James Putnam

We experiment with objects that are undergoing changes of velocity. We mathematically model the patterns found in the data with the equation f=ma. The data consists only of measurements of distance and time. We do not know what force is or what resistance to force is. We deduce from the patterns that both of these properties exist. However, we cannot learn their natures from the data. We have only distance and time to work with.

We experience distance and time directly. We move across distances during periods of time. We do not, at this early stage, see a connection between the two. So far as we can tell, they are unique, fundamental, properties of the universe. At this point, they are the properties of communication with us.

We give distance and time names and adopt unique units of measurement for each of them. The units of distance are called meters, and, those of time are seconds. Their units cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. There are no pre-existing units at this beginning point. Therefore, distance and time are accepted as fundamental, indefinable properties.

Even though we do not know their natures, it is from them that we learn all else. What we observe from the experiments is acceleration, and, acceleration consists of ratios of distance with respect to time squared. We deduce that the experiments indicate four properties. They are: distance, time, force, and resistance to force. We see variations in the motion of objects; but, we deduce just these four properties.

We cannot determine from the evidence that force and resistance to force are fundamentally unique. They may be related to each other. They may even be related to distance and/or time. In other words, unity may exist at this fundamental level. There may be a single cause that is manifesting itself in different ways. At this early stage of scientific learning, we cannot tell whether or not this is the case.

We decide to proceed into the unknown. We begin to theorize about the meaning of f=ma. There are different possibilities of choice. If we guess that the natures of force and resistance to force are fundamentally unique, then, in order to proceed with using the equation, we must, because of not knowing otherwise, theorize into existence a unique nature for one of them. We give them names. One is called force, and, the other is called mass. We choose mass to be assigned an indefinable nature. By this act, it joins distance and time as indefinable properties. Force is then definable in terms of mass, distance and time.

So far, our act has consisted of words and ideas; the equation is not directly affected. Now though there has been created a need to invent a unit of measurement for mass. Its units, to accurately represent the indefinable status assigned to mass, cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is assigned units of kilograms. There are now three indefinable units of measurement. By this act, the theoretically invented uniqueness of mass becomes solidified into the equation. The units of force are named Newtons and are defined in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds.

The equation that began as an empirical mathematical expression has been transformed into part of a theory. The theory is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. In other words, it is set in stone in the equation that we do not know what mass is. From this point on, the equation becomes subservient to the ideas of the theory. That theory will infect itself into all higher level theory that makes use of this definition of mass.

What difference does this make? If unity exists at the fundamental level, we have not only missed the opportunity to discover it, but, we have introduced theoretical disunity into our analysis at its very beginning. If fundamental unity exists, we will not be able to discover that unless we determine how to define mass. No other correction will work.

It will be possible to theorize about the existence of unseen properties that when inserted into physics equations, will give the appearance of achieving unity. But, unity is not something that can be patched onto theory that has been developed on the premise that fundamental unity does not exist. That premise will remain solidified into physics equations until we define mass. When we learn what mass is, physics theory could change radically.

James Putnam

Constantinos,

This is an excerpt from my essay Our Analog Universe. Here is where I introduce the idea that gravity doesn't cause the speed of light to vary, rather, the variation of the speed of light causes the effect we know as gravity:

Maxwell's prediction was that the speed of light is a local phenomenon. The prediction is: The speed of light depends only upon the local permeability and permittivity of the medium through which the light is passing. In other words, as light passes through changing mediums its velocity will vary.

The Pound-Rebka experiment result can be predicted by treating light as if it accelerates due to gravity. Therefore, I allow for this possibility by representing the speed of light as the variable vc.

g = dvc/dt = act

Where, act represents the acceleration of light due to gravity. The acceleration of both matter and light are equal:

dvp/dt = dvc/dt

The velocity also changes with respect to distance. For equal distances:

vpdvp/dx = vcdvc/dx

An important aspect of these equations is, until proven otherwise, they can be read both forward and backward with equal theoretical validity. This introduces the need to test for both possibilities.

Reading them forward, they say that gravity causes the speed of light to change. In reverse they say: The acceleration due to gravity is caused by the change in the speed of light. In other words, if the speed of light is controlled by matter, then the effect we call gravity follows automatically without the introduction of a fundamental gravitational field.

Multiplying by dx and introducing a negative sign for negative change of velocity:

vpdvp = -vcdvc

Light slows as it approaches the Earth. The speed that it loses is gained by the falling object.

Setting up the indicated integral and solving yields:

vp2 = vc12 - vc22

The subscripts 1 and 2 represent two magnitudes for the speed of light existing at two different heights above the Earth. The equation describes an object with zero initial velocity at the upper level of vc1 and a final velocity given by the equation at the lower level of vc2.

James Putnam

Akiinbo,

"1. "The vc is how I represent the variable speed of light... It is the speed of light, ... that a remote observer in free space would calculate for anywhere else ..not in free space (like Earth)".

Since you know G, M and r for Earth, and the velocity of light in unfree space, try to do the math and get a value for light velocity in free space."

I know the magnitude of the velocity of light in free space. It is the same speed as measured here on Earth. The equation will not calculate it. The measured speed of light on the Earth is not the real speed of light on the Earth. Length contraction on the Earth affects the measurement causing the result to be the same as in free space.

Here on the Earth, assume there is in front of us a transparent tank containing water. The light that passes into the container will slow. We as outside observers use our outside measuring rod and clock to measure that slower speed of light. If the measurement occurred in the tank in the water, then the measured speed of light would be the same as in free space. This effect occurs because length contracts more in the water than exists outside the tank.

The measurement of the speed of light everywhere as measured locally will give the same free space magnitude because of locally occurring length contractions of various magnitudes.

"2. The statements, "Yes, the speed of light is faster in free space than on the Earth" and "Yes C has a greater magnitude than does vc everywhere that is not free space" violently contradict "I stated that the speed of light measures as the same constant everywhere. That means that the measurement of the speed of light on the Earth is the same as the measurement of the speed of light in free space. That is why I use the Earth's local measurement of the speed of light as the magnitude of C""

No they do not conflict. The locally measured speed of light everywhere is the same magnitude as exists in free space. The real local speed of light cannot be measured locally because of the existence of local length contraction to the measuring device. The real local speed of light is not the same as the speed of light in free space. A refined more exact form of my equation could be used to calculate the real speed of light here on Earth. It would not be the same as the locally measured speed of light here on the Earth.

"3. "The measurement cannot be carried out physically by placing the measuring device between the remote observer and Earth. The speed of light varies and length varies. The measurement process that I refer to is the same as used for expressing measurements from an observer's perspective in special relativity... ". Let us leave special relativity complications out of this for the moment since gravity is involved."

I include references to special relativity type effects because they are length contraction and time dilation. I am using the common name of 'time dilation' currently given to the slowing process that I say results from the slowing of the speed of light. The speed of light is slower here on the Earth than in free space. Events occur slower here on the Earth than they do in free space. My use of the name 'time dilation' does not refer to an effect upon time. It does refer to an effect upon clocks.

Both length contraction and the slowing effect called time dilation also occur due to gravity. My answer to you involved comparing lengths at two different locations. There is no length contraction in free space. There is length contraction on the Earth. Each observer relies on their local length of measuring device. They can't put that device between free space and Earth because length contracts in increasing amounts between free space and the Earth.

If I want to know what the remote observe in free space would measure for the speed of light on Earth, in the hypothetical case of using their own local measuring device, then I do it the same way as is done in special relativity. There are two different observers looking toward one another and neither moves nor reaches anythwhere out from their location. The variation of gravity inbetween the two is not a factor.

What matters is the length of their measuring devices locally. It is hypothetical, but it is the way to calculate the speed of light on Earth from the free space perspective. That equation of mine solves for Vc. Vc gives the speed of light everywhere other than in free space.

"4. "The measurement is hypothetical"

It is not. It has in fact been done. Several signals have been sent to freer space at time, t1 and received back on earth at time, t2. The analysis of the signals have been done and the facts are available with the Jet Propulsion Lab, JPL. The interpretation is what is contentious. Facts are sacred, comments are free.

FACT: The signals ARE catching up faster than expected with remotely located receiver.

COMMENT: Is this because the receiver is decelerating due to a solar attraction force, or is due to thermal problem in the receiver's engine slowing it down or is it as you say that light appears to be the one doing the acceleration and not the receiver? Give these a thought."

For the example of sending a light pulse out into the solar system away from the sun, the speed of light will be increasing with distance from the Earth and sun. My use of the word hypothetical applied to the example of the free space observer measuring the speed of light on the Earth solely from their vantage point in free space and using only their local measuring device. They do not reach out with anything across space. This hypothetical measurement process is analogous to the measurement process used in special relativity.

James Putnam

Akinbo,

My last message grew too long to include this:

There is a need for further clarification with regard to my equation. This is the way I wrote it in my message to you. I put in the same value of the speed of light that you gave,

vc = [(2.99792458 m/s)2 - 2(GME)/r ]1/2

In my original form I used 2.998x108 for the speed of light. Either value is adequate for very limited usefulness of that equation. The correct value to use would be the real speed of light on the Earth. That speed is not the locally measured speed.

The equation was presented for the purpose of demonstrating that the speed of light varies. However, the difference between the real value of the speed of light on the Earth and the locally measured speed of light is too small to represent in that equation.

The lack of enough significant digits for the values plugged into the equation and the very small difference in the speeds of light requires that the value for the speed of light that appears in that equation be rounded off. Rounding it off gives the same value as we measure locally. So I plug in the locally measured value of light where there should actually be the real speed of light on the Earth.

The equation in its current form is far too inaccurate for calculating anything other than approximate values for demonstration purposes. It can also serve the purpose of giving the general form of an equation for calculating the variation of the speed of light everywhere that is not in free space. I don't have that more perfectly formed equation. What is certain is that it would require far better values for all plug-ins than we presently have available.

James Putnam

In the approach to formulating physics equations that is being presented here, all properties are definable in the terms of the properties of empirical evidence. That empirical evidence is always about effects. From the patterns in those effects we learn what cause is capable of. Cause itself is not in physics equations, or should not be in physics equations. The appearance of cause in physics equations is evidence of theoretical invention that has been arbitrarily inserted into physics equations. However, it does seem that we must work with models. The models help us to visualize substitutes for cause.

I use a model. From the beginning of my work, it was clear that there can be only one fundamental cause for all effects. That conclusion follows directly from the fact that the universe is orderly. My choice of model, then had to consist of only one item. that one item needed to be able to show cause for all effects. The effects of gravity and of electromagnetism, for examples, need to be accountable by the same one item. That original model has not changed.

The model had to be simple yet have the ability to account for all effects. I saw no reason to complicate the model unless forced to do so. For the work that I have completed thus far, the single item model serves to account for gravitational effects, electrical and magnetic effects, relativity type effects, and a few quantum type effects. The effects that are not yet accounted for haven't been worked on.

The model is of a photon. It is not offered as the nature of a real photon. It is offered as simple, and sufficient model to account for all effects that I have dealt with thus far. The model is akin to a very short piece of pliable wire. It can stretch or shrink in length. It can move forward with the wire parallel to the direction of motion and it can have a tilt away from the direction of its motion. The wire shape varies because it carries the history of the effects acquired during its travels.

The effect of stretching and shrinking the length of the photon occurs in reaction to a changing speed of light. It is the changing speed of light and this variable that account for the two relativity type effects of length contraction and time dilation. The reason that the speed of light varies is because particles, such as electrons and protons cause light to accelerate. I use a defined mass. The units of that defined mass are those of inverse acceleration. The acceleration that mass represents inversely is the acceleration of light.

The only objects which react directly with mass are photons. My wire photon leaves a proton or an electron and accelerates away from it. The accelerations are not the same. That difference will be covered in another message. These photons that generate electro-magnetic effects also account for gravitational effects. The equations for electromagnetism have been developed. Gravity has proven to be more difficult, although, some equations have been developed.

The final point here is that if there are is a proton and an electron existing stationary and apart, they will not move toward one another unless photons are present. It is the photons that are the cause of action between the two particles. The means by which photons carry out this feat begins with the accelerations of charged particles.

James Putnam

Akinbo Ojo

James,

"The value of the real speed of light on the Earth is not the locally measured speed".

We are probably saying the same thing. To you, the REAL speed is the speed in FREE space and is different from what we measure locally and value as 299792458m/s.

"The equation was presented for the purpose of demonstrating that the speed of light varies".

OKAY.

"The very small difference in the speeds of light requires that the value for the speed of light that appears in that equation be rounded off"... "So I plug in the locally measured value of light where there should actually be the real speed of light on the Earth"

DON'T ROUND OFF. THAT TINY DIFFERENCE CAN DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING.

"The equation in its current form is far too inaccurate for calculating anything other than approximate values for demonstration purposes. It can also serve the purpose of giving the general form of an equation for calculating the variation of the speed of light everywhere that is not in free space".

MANAGE THE EQUATION WITH ITS CURRENT FORM OF ACCURACY. YOU CAN USE IT TO KNOW WHAT LIGHT SPEED WILL BE ON THE SUN, ON THE MOON AND ON THE EARTH. YOU CAN USE IT TO KNOW THAT LIGHT WILL BEND AND SLOW.

"I know the magnitude of the velocity of light in free space. It is the same speed as measured here on Earth", "No they do not conflict. The locally measured speed of light everywhere is the same magnitude as exists in free space"

CONTRADICTION REPEATED. YOU EARLIER SAID, "The value of the real speed of light on the Earth is not the locally measured speed".

"For the example of sending a light pulse out into the solar system away from the sun, the speed of light will be increasing with distance from the Earth and sun".

YES. I HAVE DONE THE CALCULATION OF THIS EFFECT. THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN FREE SPACE OR FLAT SPACE-TIME IS 299792458.2087m/s, while that measured locally is 299792458m/s. A very tiny difference (about 10-10), but you can use your equation to confirm. When you plug this into the signal data for Pioneer 10 and 11 from about 20 A.U. distance, this very tiny difference shows up and you get something worth celebrating. Indeed light signals were catching up earlier with the craft and returning to base earlier than envisaged leading to a bluish discolouration of the expected redshift.

Akinbo

James Putnam

Akinbo,

James: "The value of the real speed of light on the Earth is not the locally measured speed".

Akinbo: "We are probably saying the same thing. To you, the REAL speed is the speed in FREE space and is different from what we measure locally and value as 299792458m/s."

No we are not saying the same thing. The measured speed of light on the Earth is the same magnitude as the speed of light in free space. The speed of light measures the same magnitude everywhere when measured locally.

James: "The equation was presented for the purpose of demonstrating that the speed of light varies".

Akinbo: "OKAY."

James: "The very small difference in the speeds of light requires that the value for the speed of light that appears in that equation be rounded off"... "So I plug in the locally measured value of light where there should actually be the real speed of light on the Earth"

Akinmbo: "DON'T ROUND OFF. THAT TINY DIFFERENCE CAN DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING."

James: ""The equation in its current form is far too inaccurate for calculating anything other than approximate values for demonstration purposes. It can also serve the purpose of giving the general form of an equation for calculating the variation of the speed of light everywhere that is not in free space"."

Akinbo: "MANAGE THE EQUATION WITH ITS CURRENT FORM OF ACCURACY. YOU CAN USE IT TO KNOW WHAT LIGHT SPEED WILL BE ON THE SUN, ON THE MOON AND ON THE EARTH. YOU CAN USE IT TO KNOW THAT LIGHT WILL BEND AND SLOW."

No I can't. The solutions would be have no more accuracy than does the least accurate number plugged into that equation. In your case, you are using the wrong magnitude for the speed of light in free space.

James: ""I know the magnitude of the velocity of light in free space. It is the same speed as measured here on Earth", "No they do not conflict. The locally measured speed of light everywhere is the same magnitude as exists in free space""

Akinmbo: "CONTRADICTION REPEATED. YOU EARLIER SAID, "The value of the real speed of light on the Earth is not the locally measured speed"."

No they do not conflict. The locally measured speed of light everywhere is the same magnitude as exists in free space. But, that magnitude is correct only in free space. There is no contradiction. The real speed of light anywhere other than free space is different from the locally measured speed of light anywhere other than in free space. The reason it is different is because all local measurements will give the same magnitude for the speed of light. The real speed of light is different from the locally measured speed of light everywhere other than in free space. There is no contradiction in what I have said.

James: "For the example of sending a light pulse out into the solar system away from the sun, the speed of light will be increasing with distance from the Earth and sun".

Akinbo: "YES. I HAVE DONE THE CALCULATION OF THIS EFFECT. THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN FREE SPACE OR FLAT SPACE-TIME IS 299792458.2087m/s, while that measured locally is 299792458m/s. A very tiny difference (about 10-10), but you can use your equation to confirm. When you plug this into the signal data for Pioneer 10 and 11 from about 20 A.U. distance, this very tiny difference shows up and you get something worth celebrating. Indeed light signals were catching up earlier with the craft and returning to base earlier than envisaged leading to a bluish discolouration of the expected redshift."

The value of the speed of light in free space is the same as the value of the speed of light measured locally on the Earth. They are not different. The real speed of light on the Earth is not the locally measured speed of light. The equation can give a solution of a very small difference. It is possible for that difference to be close to the real difference. But, your calculation of the speed of light in free space is in error. The speed of light in free space is 299792458m/s. The real speed of light on he Earth is less than that magnitude by the very small difference. The magnitude of the percentage of change can be close to correct. I agree that the increase in the speed of light accounts for an early return of signal. I do not agree with your original question:

Akinbo: "Would you agree that the value of speed of light in free space is 299792458.2087m/s, which is slowed by earth gravity to the value 299792458m/s measured terrestrially? And if yes, that is what can rightly be called our universal constant."

Your magnitudes are wrong. The universal constant speed of light is 299792458m/s. It is universal only as a local measurement.

James Putnam

An example of photon emission using the photon model: An electron has a positive acceleration vertically. It releases a photon in the horizontal direction. The photon, as described in the model, has a very short length. The photon begins to leave the electron at an initial electron speed. The photon is completely released shortly afterward when the electron's velocity has increased.

The trailing end of the photon moves with the electron until it is released. The effect on the photon is that it leaves the electron with a tilt. That tilt models the physical basis for the photon to have energy. During the photon's travel through space, that tilt will change as the speed of light varies. When the tilt is increased, the photon is blue-shifted. When the tilt is decreased, the photon is red-shifted. As the photon approaches the Earth, its speed will decrease and its tilt will increase.

This model of a photon is pictured as being like a short piece of wire. Its shape will vary for two reasons: The first is that it carries its history of being released by an accelerating particle of matter. The second occurs due to the photon traveling though areas with variable speeds of light. The shape of the photon will carry vestiges of all of these effects. It can have tilt, bends, curves, and twists. In principle a photon could even be shaped like a corkscrew.

This model of a photon is not presented as being a real photon. It is used as a visual aid to accompany newly developed equations. It is the equations that matter. It is the equations that demonstrate significant success in achieving a fundamentally unified model of the mechanical characteristics of the universe.

James Putnam

Constantinos,

It is taking me awhile to get back to the cause of gravity. I will get to it. I have reached a point where I can state that gravity is caused by the combination of the variation of the speed of light, photon energy, and length contraction. Once the photon model is established, the role of length contraction becomes apparent. I don't assume that you or anyone else agrees with what I am writing, but, I am presenting a fundamentally unified approach to physics.

James Putnam

As simple as this model of a photon compares to high level physics, it will be shown to account for mechanical effects. The equations of physics, so far as I have progressed, result from the photon model and mass. Mass controls the speed of photons and changes their energies. Photons cause changes to mass and particle energies. Mass also affects photons with length contraction. That contraction occurs in the photon component directed toward the mass. There is no length contraction perpendicular to that direction. The direction of photon tilt is in the perpendicular direction. When the photon length contracts in the direction of mass, and not in the perpendicular direction, the effect is to increased photon tilt, equivalent to increasing photon energy.

Before progressing further, it is no doubt obvious that the photon model does not include a wave nature. That is correct. The wave nature has not been shown to yet be necessary. All results that have been achieved from using this model were, therefore, achieved without involving a wave nature. The photon may emerge as part of the emission process undergone by a cyclic motion, perhaps a sine wave, of a 'charged' particle. There is a continuous emission of photons that leave in a wave configuration, but, the photons are always individually discrete. Their tilts vary according to the varying acceleration of the 'charged' particle. The tilt is the origin of both electrical force and magnetic force. That will be covered.

The last point made in this message is the reason why the word 'charged' is in quotes. The reason is that this approach to a fundamentally unified physics has no need for individual fundamental forces. There is one cause for all mechanical effects and it is the variation of the speed of light. That variation accounts for electromagnetic effects and also provides the origin of polarity.

James Putnam

The photon model has been introduced. It, the photon, is the cause of all mechanical type effects. It is the enabler. Yet it comes into use when a charged particle accelerates. And, it travels at a speed dictated to it by particles of matter.

Returning back to the first step in fixing physics. That step was defining mass. The equation f=ma has not had a defined mass. All physics equations that have been developed based upon the indefinable mass has been directing theoretical physics along a path of fundamental disunity.

Mass is defined in this fundamentally unified approach. It takes its units as a combination of the units in which the empirical evidence, from which its existence is inferred, is itself expressed. The units of that empirical evidence, particle accelerations, consists of combinations of meters and seconds. Mass is defined with units that are also a combination of meters and seconds. It is in this way that mass and force in f=ma are made to retain direct connection with their empirical evidence.

Originally mass had no definition and was immediately thereby made inherently separate from its empirical roots. It was a theoretical act introducing a theoretical property into an f=ma that itself became then theoretical along with all theory that followed it.

Correcting this first error of theoretical physics with this introduction of a defined mass, can be best explained by considering a proton. The new proton has a mass that is defined as the cause of the speed of light in the neighborhood of the proton. In fact, that curve that fits the acceleration of light away from or toward the proton becomes the definition of what is a proton. The model of the photon combined with the definition of a proton's mass will demonstrate how the effects of electromagnetism and gravity are connected.

James Putnam

The four fundamental indefinable properties of physics. Two are naturally indefinable. The other two are artificially indefinable. They were simply declared to be indefinables. The two artificial indefinables are mass and temperature. Neither are natural indefinables and should have been defined from their first introduction into physics equations. The price paid for making mass an indefinable property is that disunity was introduced into physics equations. The price paid for making temperature an indefinable property is that the property of thermodynamic entropy remains unexplained. Not a great deal of damage is done due to not knowing what thermodynamic entropy is, because, it is skipped past in favor of unrelated versions of entropies. The real damage done is due to making mass an indefinable property. The disunity that comes with that choice cannot be undone until mass is made a defined property. F=ma must be fixed so that both force and mass are defined properties, and, their definitions are formed from the pre-existing properties of empirical evidence. It is those properties that have been fully capable of informing us of the existence of both force and mass. Everything we learn about either force or mass is learned from the properties of length and time. Those measurements of length and time combined in the form of measurements of acceleration must be fully relied upon as the sources of the definitions of force, mass, and, later for correcting thermodynamics' temperature.

James Putnam

John Cox

Tom on 10/10/13

gravity and acceleration are *equivalent* physical phenomenon...

Key word, 'equivalent', as distinct from identical. It is not simply semantics, as you consistently and properly point out. jrc

pjackson

James,

Re; 'My particle has no way of knowing speed prior to interaction'. I did answer this, but note in the wrong box, so now somewhere below.

Your analysis of my proposition is agreed. There is no issue with ebnergy conservation, it's just compressed into less time. Can you explain to Pentcho and Eckard? It does seem hard for most to assimilate.

I repeat my previous reply below;

James,

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »