Jose

"Here, as you pointed out, there are two relations, one connecting mass with energy and the other connecting mass with force. If you do not regard 'mass' as something fundamental, you can arbitrarily take any one relation and try to define mass. Either way, your definition will include a third factor, energy or force. How can you avoid the third factor?"

I am not entirely across this subject yet, but what I suspect the future holds. All physical units will be founded on the indefinable units of meters and seconds, length and duration. From length and duration, velocity and acceleration can be derived, and all universal physical measures will be definable in these terms. Mass will be abandoned and the energy content and properties of matter will all be factored as a value of velocity. It will be the "proportionality" of different values of velocity, which will show up deep insight into the workings of the world, and a fuller more effective description of nature.

This more effective description of the world will include a variable mass (substitute), dependent on the knowledge that mass expresses a variable photonic velocity. It redistributes the gravitating mass throughout the galaxy, to where it accounts for flat rotation curves, and cuspy core.

As for the equivalence principle. I believe the property of matter we refer to as mass is photonic, and a photons action corresponds to its velocity. Inertial mass and gravitational mass will both conform to this one property of matter, which resists changes in state of motion, and also responds to a gravitational field with photon acceleration.

Steve

I believe I have something more substantial that merely a theory that I like. These details I have been giving you lately, are wrapped up in the consequences of an overall picture, that if this overall picture is approaching a truth, then these details are also approaching the truth.

I havent spent much time sharing my ideas here yet. I've been spending some time learning from James, rather than trying to impress anybody lately.

Steve

Steven,

I am referring to you; not that you have disagreed, only that if you think any of my argument to be illogical I expect you to state it bluntly, and I will not take it as an offence (that is, similarly, if I say some of your arguments are illogical, please do not take it as an offence). Did what I wrote appear as if I am referring to a previous disagreement?

Quoting you, "All physical units will be founded on the indefinable units of meters and seconds, length and duration." What does it mean? (i).Is it that everything will be expressed in meters and seconds, that is, there will be only two units or (ii). that the values of other constants will be changed to new units instead of the existing units, and the new units will be in agreement with the new units of length and time to be proposed.

Quoting you, "Mass will be abandoned and the energy content and properties of matter will all be factored as a value of velocity."

Even now, energy content is factored as a value of velocity. Two bodies having different masses will have different energy contents even if they are moving at the same speed. Their energy contents per unit mass is the same, and the actual energy contents depend on their masses. To get the total energy content of the two, you have to add the masses, and multiply it with the speed factor you use. Mass cannot be abandoned.

Based on E= mc2, one can say that 'energy depends on mass and velocity', or 'mass depends on energy and velocity'. But if someone says that based on the equation, we can infer that 'mass depends on velocity only', then it is incorrect and illogical.

Jose P Koshy

Jose P. Koshy,

"James said that my words are judgmental."

What James said is " Your responses are judgmental in the manner of a superior."

James Putnam

Jose

You said

"Did what I wrote appear as if I am referring to a previous disagreement?"

It had sounded like it, but must be my mistake.

I said

"All physical units will be founded on the indefinable units of meters and seconds, length and duration."

You said

"What does it mean? (i).Is it that everything will be expressed in meters and seconds, that is, there will be only two units or (ii). that the values of other constants will be changed to new units instead of the existing units, and the new units will be in agreement with the new units of length and time to be proposed."

It means that all measures will be foundationed on units of length and duration. Not that they will be the only units. Velocity is a different unit from length and duration, but a combination of both. Frequency is another useful unit, but again a combination of other factors made up of length and duration. therefore (ii) is a better fit.

I said

"Mass will be abandoned and the energy content and properties of matter will all be factored as a value of velocity."

Mass doesnt have to be abandoned, if it is re-cast to be definable in terms of velocity, which is definable in terms of length and duration.

"Even now, energy content is factored as a value of velocity. Two bodies having different masses will have different energy contents even if they are moving at the same speed. Their energy contents per unit mass is the same, and the actual energy contents depend on their masses. To get the total energy content of the two, you have to add the masses, and multiply it with the speed factor you use. Mass cannot be abandoned."

Never say never. I do hesitate to enter this extended discussion James and yourself are having. I haven't seen points of interest being acknowledged. And if there are no points to agree on, then why bump heads.

"Based on E= mc2, one can say that 'energy depends on mass and velocity', or 'mass depends on energy and velocity'. But if someone says that based on the equation, we can infer that 'mass depends on velocity only', then it is incorrect and illogical."

I hope you dont mind, I set a test for you. If you pass the test, then I know we can have a conversation. So we consider e=mc2, and ask the question. Why is the energy content of mass a tidy multiple of a measure of velocity C? C is measured in meters and seconds, which are completely arbitrary selections of length and duration. So the significant of C does not come from their arbitrary selection of lengths or duration's. Where then, does the significance of C arise from Jose, if not from the arbitrary units that define C? Why does C work for our purposes?

Steve

James

I am wondering if you will respond to my concept for inertial mass? inertia being the resistance felt while accelerating a body, because it requires overcoming of matters internal state of motion, that of the photonic mass. The nature of mass being photonic velocity, and its current state of motion has to be changed, to accelerate a body. Resistance to changes in state of motion.

I have done a lot more listening than talking, so I wonder if on occasion I can request something of you in return?

Steve

Steven and Jose,

On pages 83, 84, & 85 I give examples of how the units of physics change

With regard to whether or not mass is abandoned: Nothing that is empirically verifiable is abandoned. However, they make their appearances as members of a fundamentally unified model of the Universe. This unification comes about from defining all properties in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. Following this practice for mass in particular, is what immediately returns fundamental unity to physics equations. The re-establishment of fundamental unity needs only one cause for all effects. That cause is identified when mass is defined. That cause is variations of the speed of light. It is the case that the definition of mass is that it is an inverse representation of the acceleration of light. Mass, in its new defined identity, remains but f=ma changes. It becomes f=aobject/ac where mass is replaced by the property that it inversely represents ac the acceleration of light as controlled by the same object that is undergoing the acceleration aobject.

This next point is not intended to be convincing as a stand alone statement. Its purpose is to strongly emphasize that all effects are caused by the variation of the speed of light. The point is this: There no longer will exist a circular definition for electric charge. The electromagnetic effects that it is credited with sourcing become cause by the variation of the speed of light just as are all other effects. The magnitude of electron/proton electric charge is a universal constant. That constant remains. It is the only real Universal constant. However, that magnitude no longer carries units of coulombs nor does it belong to 'electric charge'.

The property of 'electric charge' is abandoned. Its universal constant magnitude is found to be a measure of time. It is the only real measure of the property of time. It is not a measure of duration. It is the measure of time that it takes for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. Its magnitude and units are 1.602x10-19 seconds. It is expressed in units of seconds because they are understood. However, it later is introduced as the universal unit of time. Its magnitude becomes unity meaning the number one. It replaces the unit of the second.

In closing, the reason that electric charge has had a circular definition is because there is no way to define it. Its existence was an assumption about the identities of two constants that appeared in Coulomb's electric force equation describing the interaction of two 'charged' particles. Electric field theory made the idea of electric charge seem certain. There is no electric field, nor magnetic field; there is only the variation of the speed of light. Those two constants are both individual measures of the time it takes for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. The mathematics to show this and to put the idea to work exists in my essay entry for the 2008 Essay Contest The Nature of Time. The Essay is titled: The Absoluteness of Time

James Putnam

Steven Andresen,

(For readers: I used the word exceleration to conveniently represent a change of velocity with respect to distance. The word acceleration represents a change of velocity with respect to time. The general reason for having used these two different forms of measurement is that I use different equations for each of them. The equations were introduced in prior work. They are not used in this excerpt. There is no mathematics to read.)

(Steven, What follows is copied from what I placed on my website in 2001. It is even older than that. I have not had cause to rewrite it, although it needs rewritten, because conversations have never progressed that far. It is the quickest response I can give. It explains how I expected the variability of the speed of light would cause particles to attract or repel one another. I started today to write an essay for the contest. It will consume my time between now and Friday. I will try though to respond more when possible.)

Particle Polarity

The empirical evidence of electrical type effects demonstrates that there is a cause of polarity and it is connected to particles of matter. Electron s will voluntarily move toward protons. Electrons will voluntarily move away from other electrons. The effect named polarity, as with all effects, must be caused by the primary cause. The primary cause is the variation of the speed of light. I have already used, for the purposes of defining the size of the hydrogen atom, the idea that electrons cause a positive exceleration of light and protons cause a negative exceleration of light. There is, therefore, a natural polarity of the change of velocity of light. This is the starting point to begin theorizing the polarity of electrical effects.

The speed of light is under the control of particles of matter. The theoretical model of the light-field, which I have used only for convenience, is superfluous. Since particles of matter are already defined, there is nothing else needed. The particles of matter are the form of existence of the primary cause that I have called light-fields. In an analogous manner, it can be argued that there is no universal background of emptiness. The integrated extensions of particles are the definition of space.

Although particles can theoretically be said to be infinite, the effect we measure as the mass of a particle is detectable almost solely within the length of a single photon. Beyond this distance, the particle's effect becomes greatly diminished as evidenced by the difference of magnitude between electrical force and gravitational force. What have been known as charged particles are high and low points in the continuum of space or, as space can more accurately be defined, are high and low peaks in the continuum of the control of the speed of light. They are high and low points in the speed of light. Their overlapping effects are what I have defined as the background light-field. I will use this visual aid again here. The background light-field is a relatively constant speed of light. Its variations are measured as the effect we call gravity.

I picture electrons as the high peaks and protons as the low peaks with respect to the background light-field. Since electrons and protons are attracted toward each other, I anticipate that there is something about the polarities of their excelerations of light that causes this attraction. If this is the case, then it implies that the variation of the speed of light is one of two fundamental aspects of the universe.

There are, it seems to me, two causes of change in the universe. There is, of course, the variation of the speed of light. The first aspect is that there are permanent sources of a change of velocity of light. These sources are called particles, and they guarantee there will always be variations in the speed of light. The second aspect is that light acts to neutralize variations in its speed. The movement of an electron toward a proton accomplishes a minimization of their individual effects upon the speed of light. In other words, their opposing effects increasingly overlap and tend to counteract each other. It is as if the speed of light needs to try to be a constant. The existence of individual electrons and protons disrupts this goal. The combining of electrons with protons is an approach toward this goal. Also, the movement of one electron away from another electron has the same effect.

I define a positive electrical polarity for matter if the speed of light increases with distance from the particle. The polarity is negative when the speed of light decreases with distance from the particle. The effects we have known as electrical repulsion and electrical attraction are the result of these two opposite polarities causing particles to move in a manner that tends to neutralize changes of the speed of light.

Formation of Atoms

The acceleration of light raises the question of a polarity for mass. It is assumed that the acceleration of light due to a particle can be positive or negative. I define a positive polarity for mass if the speed of light increases with distance from the particle. The polarity is negative when the speed of light decreases with distance from the particle. I will assume, since the source of a positive cceleration of light attracts the source of a negative acceleration of light, that there is a natural goal or speed which light is directed to achieve. I will further assume this goal or speed to be constant. That is to say, the acceleration source moves in a direction that will accomplish the most diminishing effect upon the acceleration of light.

The proton moves toward the electron and vice versa because opposite accelerations of the speed of light tend to cancel each other out. Particles, which are the source of the imbalance of the speed of light, try to move in directions tending to cancel out the imbalance they cause. There are important limitations on the ability of particles to achieve some balance in the speed of light. I will give two of them here.

One is, the particles do not move toward or away from each other just because of the gradients of their light-fields. They can only react to the intermediaries of light, the photons. The existence of light-fields does not cause any direct action between particles. If it weren't for the existence of photons, particles would have no means for revealing their existence to one another. Particles need photons as the catalysts to enable them to move.

The photons are the catalysts because they carry acceleration with them. The amount of this increment of acceleration will not normally be the precise amount that would allow for a secure balancing of effects to occur. The particles accelerate in response to the history of motion of other particles. The timing is late, and the acceleration is not the correct amount needed at that late instant of time.

Photons gain their increments of acceleration from the motion of the particles. Acceleration is being passed back and forth. This exchange of acceleration back and forth between photons and particles will not let either of them achieve a lasting balance. Usually there will not be a balance achieved between the light-fields. The normal condition is that the only balance that can occur often enough to allow for a predictable universe is the balance of acceleration between photons and articles. When this kind of balance is achieved, atoms form.

James Putnam

I have still imrpoved my equation E=mc²+ml² I had made still an error.We must abolutely change the m because we have two kinds of matter , one baryonic and the other not baryonic.So the interpretation of the mass must be rethough.So I have simply put two different kinds of mass, one barionic so m(b) and m(nb) with m(b) mass baryonic and m(nb)mass not baryonic.We must rethought our mass.Quantum gravitation is explained like dark Matter, dark Energy and Black holes.We have also a road towards this entire infnite paradoxal entropy.

Steven,

Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying exactly to what you have said. But that is inevitable, and I will try my best.

Quoting you, "So we consider e=mc2, and ask the question. Why is the energy content of mass a tidy multiple of a measure of velocity C?". Here, the equation is based on Relativity theories of Einstein. In my opinion, Relativity theories are incorrect. I follow Newtonian concepts with some modifications. I propose (an arbitrary suggestion) that motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter, and so the natural energy of any body is mc2/2. Here, energy is the amount of motion. But even then, the remaining questions are valid for my equation also.

Quoting you, "C is measured in meters and seconds, which are completely arbitrary selections of length and duration. So the significant of C does not come from their arbitrary selection of lengths or duration's. Where then, does the significance of C arise from Jose, if not from the arbitrary units that define C? Why does C work for our purposes?"

This is a very basic question. The 'speed of light' and 'not the units used for measuring it' has the significance. You can use any set of arbitrary units (of length and time) for measuring speed of light. In whatever units you measure, you can convert it into meter and second, and get the same value (3x108m/s approximately). Thus in any set of units speed of light will have a certain value, and that value will work provided we use the corresponding units in all equations. I think this what you have asked.

Another aspect of your question is why the speed of light is significant? In Relativity Theories of Einstein its significance has been explained. In my model, it has significance because my arguments start from the arbitrary assumption that all bodies should be moving at speed of light, provided the whole of its motion remains as its speed and also it has not transferred part of it another body.

Jose P Koshy

James Putnam,

What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean that light can 'remain at rest' and 'get accelerated to infinite speed'? Or is it that the speed of light remains within a maximum and minimum limit? If it remains within certain limits, has it a normal speed?

Let us start from the 'definition for mass' as a starting point. It is an inverse representation of acceleration. This implies that 'something' acts on the body causing acceleration, and I think you are saying that the 'same thing' causes acceleration of light also. Using that, you obtained a new equation for force. The equation suggests that force has no unit; it is just a ratio.

You have expressed charge in seconds; that means charge is made up of time.

Jose p Koshy

"What do you mean by the acceleration of light?"

One answer is that there was a choice for Einstein to either have light accelerate or to have time accelerate. He relied upon the constant measure of the speed of light being C and arrived at the conclusion, with the leadership of Minkowsky, that time instead accelerates positively and negatively.

"Do you mean that light can 'remain at rest' and 'get accelerated to infinite speed'?"

Light is never at rest. Its velocity varies. It always has a velocity; and, it always measures locally as the speed C.

"Or is it that the speed of light remains within a maximum and minimum limit? If it remains within certain limits, has it a normal speed?"

Theoretically there is no maximum value for the speed of light. If we here on Earth could remotely measure the actual speed of light in other locations then, assuming that the Universe is expanding, we would see the speed of light increasing with no limit unless the Universe can't expand to infinite size.

I wrote this in my message to Steven:

The empirical evidence of electrical type effects demonstrates that there is a cause of polarity and it is connected to particles of matter. Electrons will voluntarily move toward protons. Electrons will voluntarily move away from other electrons. The effect named polarity, as with all effects, must be caused by the primary cause. The primary cause is the variation of the speed of light. I have already used, for the purposes of defining the size of the hydrogen atom, the idea that electrons cause a positive exceleration of light and protons cause a negative exceleration of light. There is, therefore, a natural polarity of the change of velocity of light. This is the starting point to begin theorizing the polarity of electrical effects.

The effect we measure as the mass of a particle is detectable almost solely within the length of a single photon. Beyond this distance, the particle's effect becomes greatly diminished. What have been known as charged particles are high and low points in the continuum of space or, as space can more accurately be defined, are high and low peaks in the continuum of the control of the speed of light. They are high and low points in the speed of light. Their overlapping effects are what I have defined as the background light-field. I will use this visual aid again here. The background light-field is a relatively constant speed of light. Its mostly minor variations are measured as the effect we call gravity.

I picture electrons as the high peaks and protons as the low peaks with respect to the background light-field. Since electrons and protons are attracted toward each other, I anticipate that there is something about the polarities of their excelerations of light that causes this attraction. If this is the case, then it implies that the variation of the speed of light is one of two fundamental aspects of the universe.

There are, it seems to me, two causes of change in the universe. There is, of course, the variation of the speed of light. The first aspect is that there are permanent sources of a change of velocity of light. These sources are called particles, and they guarantee there will always be variations in the speed of light. The second aspect is that light acts to neutralize variations in its speed. The movement of an electron toward a proton accomplishes a minimization of their individual effects upon the speed of light. In other words, their opposing effects increasingly overlap and tend to counteract each other. It is as if the speed of light needs to try to be a constant. The existence of individual electrons and protons disrupts this goal. The combining of electrons with protons is an approach toward this goal. Also, the movement of one electron away from another electron has the same effect.

I define a positive electrical polarity for matter if the speed of light increases with distance from the particle. The polarity is negative when the speed of light decreases with distance from the particle. The effects we have known as electrical repulsion and electrical attraction are the result of these two opposite polarities causing particles to move in a manner that tends to neutralize changes of the speed of light.

I assume, since the source of a positive acceleration of light attracts the source of a negative acceleration of light, that there is a natural goal or speed which light is directed to achieve. I will further assume this goal or speed to be constant. That is to say, the acceleration source moves in a direction that will accomplish the most diminishing effect upon the acceleration of light.

The proton moves toward the electron and vice versa because opposite accelerations of the speed of light tend to cancel each other out. Particles, which are the source of the imbalance of the speed of light, try to move in directions tending to cancel out the imbalance they cause. There are important limitations on the ability of particles to achieve some balance in the speed of light. I will give two of them here.

One is, the particles do not move toward or away from each other just because of the gradients of their light-fields. They can only react to the intermediaries of light, the photons. The existence of light-fields does not cause any direct action between particles. If it weren't for the existence of photons, particles would have no means for revealing their existence to one another. Particles need photons as the catalysts to enable them to move.

The photons are the catalysts because they carry acceleration with them. The amount of this increment of acceleration will not normally be the precise amount that would allow for a secure balancing of effects to occur. The particles accelerate in response to the history, delivered by photons, of motion of other particles. The timing is late, and the acceleration is not the correct amount needed at that late instant of time. Photons gain their increments of acceleration from the motion of the particles. Acceleration is being passed back and forth.

"Let us start from the 'definition for mass' as a starting point. It is an inverse representation of acceleration. This implies that 'something' acts on the body causing acceleration, and I think you are saying that the 'same thing' causes acceleration of light also."

The acceleration of a object is what implies that something is acting on the object. The acceleration, which its mass represents inversely, of light is what a particle consists of. The particle is the local control of the speed of light. Light is photons. There is no 'thing' that causes both a particle to accelerate and causes light to accelerate. The particle causes light to accelerate and light cause the particle to accelerate. A photon is said to be brought into existence when a charged particle changes its velocity. The photon is very small and is incremental in size and scope. It carries away an increment of the acceleration of the particle that brought it into existence. When the photon later impacts another charged particle, it causes that charged particle to change its velocity by the stored incremental amount.

"Using that, you obtained a new equation for force. The equation suggests that force has no unit; it is just a ratio."

Only the definition of mass as the inverse representation of the acceleration of light is used. Mass has never been defined before this. It has always been recognized to be a fundamentally indefinable property of physics.

When the defined mass is substituted into the force equation, it is learned that force has reduced units of unity, meaning it is unitless. What I mean by reduced units is that the full units of force at the units of one acceleration divided by the units of another acceleration. You are correct that the units do cancel out and force becomes a ratio of unitless numbers. However, that is what it always has been. A force is compared to a unit of force by dividing the force by that unit of force.

If you have the mathematical skills to read the attached paper below then, you will see a very important example of the benefit of recognizing that force is naturally unitless.

"You have expressed charge in seconds; that means charge is made up of time."

It does not mean that charge is made up of time. Nothing is made up of time other than time itself. What it means is that there is no such thing as electric charge. The magnitude of an electron's electric charge is now recognized in my work as a measure of time that is far more important than its past role. In physics equations rates of change are almost exclusively measured with respect to time. This is represented mathematically as (A measure of change of a property)/dt where dt is a near infinitesimally small measure of time. Replace that 'dt' with an incremental measure of time having the magnitude attributed heretofore to the property called 'electric charge' and the equations of physics suddenly become connected together displaying that fundamental unity does exist. This special increment of time is represented in my equations by 'delta t' where delta is the triangular greek letter Delta.

James PutnamAttachment #1: 1_Calculating_the_Universal_Gravitational_Constant_1.pdf

    Making a point that needs to be stressed in the interest of fixing physics. The Universe is orderly. All parts work together maintaining the existence and operation of the universe. Any disorder located anywhere in the Universe would destroy order in all of the Universe. Furthermore, all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the Universe had to have been provided for at the beginning of the Universe. Later added on 'miracles' are not scientifically permissible. The Universe has always had fundamental unity, meaning a single cause for all effects. It could not have been otherwise. Orderliness can tolerate just one cause for all effects.

    What this means for theoretical physics is that there can be no four or more fundamental forces. The patterns observed in empirical evidence have been separated into groups that are put forward as evidence for the existence of separate fundamental causes. The idea that there can be more than a single cause is untenable in a Universe that continues its existence. Those separated out groups result from insufficient scientific learning of that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. When a property is inferred to exist from empirical evidence it must not be accepted, out of ignorance of how otherwise to proceed forward with developing physics equations, as an undefined property.

    An undefined property is an unexplained property. Once accepted as being indefinable, a property becomes a permanent loss of understanding about a part of the operation of the Universe. These blanks left behind in physics knowledge are the source of ideas such as gravity is a fundamental force, or, that there is a separate unique cause for electromagnetism. Watching these, 'unique fundamental forces' cooperating in maintaining the existence of the Universe is the very evidence that they are not independent unique forces.

    Their proposed 'unique independence' doesn't result from scientific learning, but rather from they lack of scientific learning. They are the evidence that physics has failed to uncover the existence of fundamental unity. The Universe is not confused about it. The Universe has succeeded in achieving its goal of human free will. Theoretical physics has not only failed to recognize fundamental unity, but, remains an artificially low level mechanical interpretation of the Universe that has no predictive nor explanatory ability for the existence of life and intelligence. There is no way that intelligence can arise from dumbness.

    James Putnam

    Should the first step in fixing physics be the act of defining mass? I thought so. I think it should have been so. It is the first step in almost completely renewing physics by pushing theoretical physics back from its current ruling position. I think now that the first step in fixing physics is to enforce the need for direct support of empirical evidence. Theoretical physics should shudder at the possibility that they must show direct empirical support for their intrusions into the formation of physics equations. The necessary corrective action needs to be first the removal of Relativity Theory. The reason for this claim must go right to the core problem with Relativity Theory. It has no empirical support. Its supporting foundation relies upon time-dilation and length-contraction. They appear together in their unification called space-time. There is no empirical evidence that space contracts. There is no empirical evidence that time dilates. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to tell us about effects upon either time or space. All physics empirical evidence consists of patterns of acceleration of particles and combinations of particles. That is all of it. No one, nowhere, at no time has ever provided support for the pillars of Relativity Theory.

    A general reminder is necessary to be added in at this point. It is that: The success of predictions relies upon the accuracy of the mathematical modeling of patterns observed in empirical evidence. Predictions rely upon extrapolation and interpolation of existing mathematical models of patterns observed to exist in empirical evidence. The equations, put at the mercy of theoretical physicists up until now, contain invented properties that cannot be directly verified by empirical testing. When physicists present proofs that are not directly supported by changes of velocity with respect to time of particles and objects consisting of combinations of particles, they are not presenting physical proofs.

    Physics proofs today can be either physical or theoretical proofs. The need for Fixing physics calls for requiring physical proofs. Theoretical proofs should remain at arms length until they are supported by physical proofs. Relativity theory has always failed to meet the requirement for time-dilation and length contraction to be supported by direct empirical evidence. It happens to be the case that I have accepted that length-contraction of photons and objects is real; but, time-dilation is false. My point is that arguing the obvious need for properties such as mnas and temperature and electric charge need to be defined according to historical, strict physics guidelines. My conclusion is this: The first corrective action taken by physicists to fix physics needs to be the refutation of Relativity Theory based upon over a hundred years of lack of empirical support for its foundational, and equation affected, ideas.

    James Putnam

    James putnam,

    Quoting you, "The Universe has always had fundamental unity, meaning a single cause for all effects." Maybe you are correct. Whether it is actually the real fact or not, the argument is attractive and compels one to hear what you have to say.

    Quoting you, "The equations, put at the mercy of theoretical physicists up until now, contain invented properties that cannot be directly verified by empirical testing." It is correct; Everyone will agree with it, though some may justify it; I agree with you in this case, excepts what 'empirical testing' can mean.

    Quoting you, "there can be no four or more fundamental forces." "The first corrective action taken by physicists to fix physics needs to be the refutation of Relativity Theory". The main stream may not agree; but I agree with you. There is no evidence for space-time, length contraction or time dilation; but these are simply being followed.

    I appreciate your stand in many cases; that is why I am going through your explanations expecting that you may come up with some new innovative idea. The present accepted models provide a very logical explanation of the physical world, though these contain many loopholes some of which you have pointed out. But any alternate explanation should be equally logical with less loop holes. Now I have got an overall picture of what you have to say. Unfortunately some of your arguments appear to be going against logic as given below. I would like to see how you can explain it out.

    Quoting you, "However, that is what it always has been. A force is compared to a unit of force by dividing the force by that unit of force."

    Your argument is not convincing; In all cases of measurements, we follow the same method;for example, in the case of length, we compare the length of the given object by dividing it by the unit of length. By doing so, length does not become unit-less. Force becoming unit-less is an anomaly. I will be going through the attached file soon.

    Quoting you, "It does not mean that charge is made up of time." The equation clearly says that charge is made up of time. You cannot explain an equation in an arbitrary way. Saying that the equation is correct and at the same time saying that charge is not made up of time is contradictory and so is illogical.

    Now coming to the case of acceleration of light, you say "It carries away an increment of the acceleration of the particle that brought it into existence." A positive acceleration means that velocity goes on increasing. Carrying some 'velocity' from the particle is meaningful, but carrying an 'increment of acceleration' is absurd. From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?

    Jose P Koshy

    "Quoting you, "However, that is what it always has been. A force is compared to a unit of force by dividing the force by that unit of force."

    "Your argument is not convincing; In all cases of measurements, we follow the same method;for example, in the case of length, we compare the length of the given object by dividing it by the unit of length. By doing so, length does not become unit-less. Force becoming unit-less is an anomaly. I will be going through the attached file soon."

    You are correct. That is not what makes it unitless.It is unitless because that is what empirical evidence indicates. My point about always being a ratio was meant to show that being a ratio is not radically new. However, it does seem that there was no strength in that argument and should be avoided.

    "Quoting you, "It does not mean that charge is made up of time." The equation clearly says that charge is made up of time. You cannot explain an equation in an arbitrary way. Saying that the equation is correct and at the same time saying that charge is not made up of time is contradictory and so is illogical."

    The equation does not say that charge is made up of time. It says that that property which has been interpreted as electric charge must be reviewed in light of learning that empirical evidence indicates that its reduced units should be seconds. The units do not tell us what the property is. For example the reduced units of energy are meters. Energy is not simply length. Energy is force times distance. In the case of electric charge, I am working with equations that began with the re-establishment of fundamental unity due to finally defining the property of mass. Fundamental unity allows for just one cause for all effects. Therefore, either electric charge is that cause or there is no such thing as electric charge. I have already taken my lead from empirical evidence that it is the variation of the speed of light that is the single case for all effects. Now I must use the additional new clue that the units of what has been called 'electric charge' should be seconds. So I take that lead and put it to use by substituting 1.602x10-19 seconds into Coulomb's force equation and see where that leads. If that move is absurd then the results will make no sense. The results produce improved replacement equations for Maxwell's equations. No longer do the equations depend upon field theory. They make use of energy and momentum as the key properties. Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are given clear physical explanations. The benefits go beyond application to electromagnetic effects. That incremental measure of time proved to be the single most unifying change that has general application in many other physics equations.

    "Now coming to the case of acceleration of light, you say "It carries away an increment of the acceleration of the particle that brought it into existence." A positive acceleration means that velocity goes on increasing. Carrying some 'velocity' from the particle is meaningful, but carrying an 'increment of acceleration' is absurd. From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?"

    It is not clear why you disagree. The reason I say this is because: Photons are brought into existence by 'charged' particles of matter that are accelerating. Later when those photons are absorbed by another 'charged' particle, they cause the receiving particle to accelerate. Whether one argues that the photon was given energy by the source particle and then later transferred that energy to the receiving particle; or, argues that the photon carries information that is communicated between the two particles such that, the second particle learns how it must accelerate to react 'properly' to the acceleration of the source particle, neither is absurd. I say it carries an increment of acceleration. That is not inferior to 'energy' or 'information'. Is it your belief that energy is a substance that is transferred from the particle to the photon? What do you believe the photon transfers between the two particles? When you say "From where does the photon get 'the energy' for further acceleration?" what do you mean by "...further acceleration?"

    James Putnam

    Jose and Steven,

    Jose, I carelessly left your name off of my last two messages. Thinking about our difficulty in communication, I decided a large part of it is that you are apparently unfamiliar enough with my work that when I speak of a photon carrying away an increment of acceleration, that it is what I mean to say because of my definition for mass. Current theoretical physics has very little in common with my work. If you evaluate my statements by interpreting them from the viewpoint put forward by theoretical physics, then we will continue to have difficulties in communicating accurately with one another. Here is another presentation of the effect on physics equations due to defining mass as the inverse representation of the acceleration of light.

    The important point is that there is just one cause for all effects and it is the variation of the speed of light. While a change in the speed of light can be measured either with respect to distance or with respect to time, it is with respect to time, acceleration, that is fundamentally useful. It is fundamental because each event of the acceleration of light and all effects that result from the acceleration of light are incremental because they all occur during the increment of time with the magnitude of 1.602x10[sup-19 seconds. That increment of time, recognizable as delta t, is used throughout my equations.

    When a 'charged' particle accelerates it releases a photon. The photon carries away a measure of the particle's acceleration that occurs during the time period delta t. Every photon everywhere always delivers its stored value of acceleration within delta t. Everything that a photon is involved in always takes place within a measure of time equal to delta t. This delta t is a universal constant. It always measures the same whether measured locally or remotely.

    Another place that acceleration has a fundamental relationship is for a freely falling object. The freely falling object accelerates positively as it falls. The amount of its acceleration is equal but opposite to the negative acceleration of light. Light loses speed as it approaches the Earth. Pages 1 & 2 of this essay Our Analogue Universe introduce the idea that the speed that a freely falling object gains is equal to the speed that light loses. Is this familiar? I will wait to see what you, Jose, know about the content of this message.

    Steven, Here is a link to my 2009 essay contest entry What is Possible for Theoretical Physics?. It discusses a subject close to the Mindless Mathematics question. While searching through my essays, I spotted it. I had forgotten about it.

    James Putnam

    • [deleted]

    • Post #1825

    James Putnam,

    You say that force is unitless, energy is in meters, charge is in seconds,and mass is inverse of acceleration. These do not make any sense; your definitions lack clarity and are vague. It should be noted that in the present setup the units are very clear and are logically set. So on comparing your theory with the existing ones, your proposal is a 'going back' in terms of clarity. However, your claim that it can bring in results (by results, I mean that it can solve some of the existing problems) is correct, then there can be some justification in doing so. Not only that, if your theory becomes successful as you go forward, there is the possibility you may remove the vagueness.

    Regarding acceleration, generally we use the term for an increase in speed. When a photon is released, motion is transferred to it; that is energy is transferred. If you regard photon as a wave, the information that it carry is the wavelength and amplitude. These are well explained in the present setup. But carrying an increment of acceleration does not have any meaning; it is not like carrying some energy and carrying any information. If it is to carry 'acceleration', you have to redefine acceleration.

    Let me say my opinion frankly. It appears that you do not agree with Newtonian, Quantum mechanical or Relativistic theories; but still you use some of their equations. You use the existing equations and explain the variables in it (like mass, force, acceleration, etc) in some other way. But you forget the fact that the existing equations are valid only if each variable in it is taken as what it is meant to be. That is, you cannot explain the variable as you like and then claim that the equation is correct.

    But still it seems that you have something to offer: your 'delta t' appears to me as an 'absolute value' or an 'absolute unit' for time; I assume you have such an 'absolute unit' for length also. So I would suggest, if you do not mind, that you use a set of different terms in place of mass, force, acceleration, etc and define each term and come up with your own equations, and explain why each equation is correct according to your theory.

    Jose p Koshy

      Jose P. Koshy,

      Your are mistaken in your evaluation. It is necessary to read the mathematics to understand what it is that I do and what is it that I have accomplished. I provided links such as this one. The mathematics is not complex. Can you tell me what I have done in this paper? Otherwise all that is happening is that we are talking and talk is not enough for you or anyone to understand what it is that I do. Physics is mathematical. I have reproduced work in several areas of physics and provided solutions that include solutions to problems that have remained unsolved. I have read your opinion. You appear to be responding to the content of these forum messages. We are accomplishing nothing by simply talking. Good luck presenting your theory to physicists.

      With regard to what it is that I do with physics, there is one major difference that should by itself be understandable and recognized as very important. The physics of theoretical physics is a physics that is fundamentally disunified. That is why there are separate fundamental forces; and, that is why theoretical physicists, the source of guesses about properties and their meanings, has such a large role to play in forming and interpreting physics equations. The work that I pursue is fundamentally unified. The orderliness of the Universe requires that this be the case. It is the case in my work. There is one cause for all effects. The Universe would not exist if it were otherwise. And, if an independent cause was added into the Universe at this moment, the Universe would cease to exist. The fact that the properties of the Universe, not necessarily those of theoretical physics, work harmoniously together to continue the operation of the Universe is certain evidence that there is fundamental unity and any physics interpretation must embrace it. Today's theoretical physics has been teaching fundamental disunity from the moment that mass was made a fundamental indefinable property. The return of fundamental unity requires that mass be a defined property. That is the first step needed to make physics directly dependent upon empirical evidence for meaning. The second step needed to keep fundamental unity in physics equations is to define temperature. The third step needed is to remove the circular definition of electric charge. After that, fundamental unity reigns and empirical evidence, the sole source for all that we will learn about the Universe, becomes our guide in forming physics equations and understanding them.

      James Putnam