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.
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." "
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
