Hmmm. The system said I was logged in. Previous was mine.

"If it can be argued that space expands, but the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant, than why isn't any other belief valid?"

John, that isn't the argument. The argument is that mass points all recede from each other at a rate measurable by the degree of red shift. The constant speed of light is only a standard that ensures we can use the red shift evidence -- for if the speed were not constant, or if it were infinite, we couldn't make any general conclusion about the expansion.

"The only evidence for this expansion is the redshifting of the spectrum of that very light. A lightyear is about a trillion miles, so the distance between two galaxies goes from x trillion miles, to 2x trillion miles and that's supposed to be 'expanding space' and not just increasing distance?????"

It's distance increasing with time. It suggests to us that the universe has an age. General relativity cosmology, which supports the big bang theory, is time dependent -- meaning that it is bounded at the singularity of creation. Because we don't know what t = 0 actually means, though, we don't have a bulletproof theory of cosmology, and all that we think about it now may be wrong. Cosmology is still a young science.

"Can you sleep on a bed of nails too?"

If the nails are sufficiently close together. :-) Good analogy.

Best,

Tom

James,

"I can't expect to have theory free physics approved by theorists. However, why don't you suggest a publication. I will submit an article that is limited to my case for fixing f=ma."

I think there might be some publication dedicated to philosophy of science willing to entertain an inductive approach. You can google "philosophy of science journals" for a list -- research their editorial policies and current issue contents and see what appeals to you.

The best advice I can give is to compile plenty of references from Aristotle (or earlier) up to Newton -- because Newton ("Hypotheses non fingo") is where we usually demarcate the modern theory-dependent method of science from the inductive system. Construct your case on the historical successes of induction and when you reach Newton, explain how physics would have gone in a different direction had Newton not made the choices he did.

To be honest, I thnk it's a losing proposition -- however, there exists no general theory of knowledge, so the case you make could be groundbreaking if it succeeds.

Good luck!

Best,

Tom

John, have you listened to the latest FQXi podcast? All you ever wanted to know about expansion, dark energy and the current state of cosmology. :-)

Tom

James,

Trying to catch up here. You wrote, " ... the Higgs' theory of mass is built upon the artificial indefinable status assigned to mass by theorists."

It's not the Higgs theory of mass. It's a completion of the particle table predicted by the standard model of particle physics -- which is a theory of interacting fields of energy. In quantum field theory, the strength of the field, i.e., the energy imparted to particles, predicts the existence of particles and their properties. We theoretically derive classical physics from quantum field theory in the low energy limit, though this is an open area for research, because classical fields do not describe quantum mechanical behavior.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Re: Higgs, I will wait to discuss it further until I have something to say from my own work.

The publication suggestion: Thank you for your advice. I would send it to a physics journal. Philosophy is not involved in the correction. I would not include any history beyond Newton discovering it. The problem with f=ma and its solution are both contained in the equation. Thanks anyway.

James Putnam

James, I'm afraid I disagree that your aim is not philosophy when you question such foundational physics equations as F = ma. I do not use "philosophy" as a pejorative; I do find, however, a strict demarcation of science from philosophy.

Nevertheless, if it's only feedback and credibility in the physics community that you desire, then why not publish on viXra? If you're afraid of the crackpot label, take to heart Phil Gibbs' defense of the archive he founded, to a critic called JBL:

"The professional scientific community as a whole hates censorship and suppression, until they get to the work of amateur scientists. JBL is typical of a sector of the academic community who thinks that the work of outsiders without access to an endorser for arXiv.org should not be allowed to publish their work in any form. Happily there are others who support the role of viXra and other organisations such as FQXi where the work of independent scientists is allowed to feature along side that of professional researchers. By the way, six of the 35 authors who made the final round of the latest FQXi essay contest have used viXra to archive examples of their work in the past."

(I think the contest reference was to 2010 or 2011.)

Fact is, it's hard for even professional researchers to get new ideas looked at and taken seriously. One just keeps trying to make the explanation as simple as possible, in hopes that it will be too clear to be ignored. Of course, that clarity also makes it more vulnerable to being shown wrong -- and *even then* if critics are not familiar enough with the mathematical model, they will cite errors that aren't even there: my favorite example is Richard Gill's interpretation of Joy Christian's simple one-page paper. Totally crazy.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"The constant speed of light is only a standard that ensures we can use the red shift evidence -- for if the speed were not constant, or if it were infinite, we couldn't make any general conclusion about the expansion."

Yes, it does make no sense if the speed of light increased, as we wouldn't be able to detect the expansion, BUT, the fact that light is being used as a stable frame puts it in three dimensional space, thus arguing the scale is increasing four dimensionally, that everything is on the surface of that balloon, doesn't add up.

The point I keep trying to make is that relativity already contains a very simple and obvious solution, that galaxies are gravity wells, effectively pulling in what is expanding between them. Mathematically the space expanding between galaxies is collapsing into them, resulting in the overall flat space being measured.

Physically, since what is falling into galaxies is therefore matched by what is expanding out from them and radiating for billions of lightyears, an area far larger then the area of mass contraction, light is the cosmological constant.

The only real theoretical impediment to this model is the assumption photons travel as magical point particles, whose wave function is smeared across the universe. If we consider the possibility that photons actually expand when released and what is received is a sample of the wave front, much as Eric Reiter's experiments showed, the optical explanation for redshift would seem much more obvious, but that would mean dismantling the cultural edifice of Big Bang theory and once a belief system gains sufficient momentum, it takes alot to kill it. Probably a wooden stake through the heart.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"James, I'm afraid I disagree that your aim is not philosophy when you question such foundational physics equations as F = ma."

I understand that. But the fact remains that f=ma presently contains a choice that exists only because physicists did not recognize that there is direction from the empirical evidence. The apparent existence of the choice is the doorway that opened physics up to human interference. Physics should be the pure search for understanding nature and is instead a collage of theoretical mathematical artifacts added onto physics equations.

I accept that you do not follow what I am saying. But, consider the meaning of this statement: The choices for all of f=ma were made by nature before its discovery, even back to the origin of the universe. If this statement falls flat for you, then, agreement can't happen. However, the problem is clear to me and it will continue to be pointed out. The theoretical idea that two of the properties in f=ma are left to humans to choose one to belatedly become an independent fundamental indefinable property while the other belatedly becomes a dependent defined property will continue to be challenged.

Perhaps you are right about the Arxiv. If it is receptive to my submitting a paper, I have seen that professional criticism will probably follow. With regard to being called anything derogatory, I am not vulnerable to being pushed around. I stay on target and the target is faulty technical reasoning.

James Putnam

" ... the fact that light is being used as a stable frame puts it in three dimensional space, thus arguing the scale is increasing four dimensionally, that everything is on the surface of that balloon, doesn't add up."

Then you are trying to add apples and oranges, John. Sometimes I wish that balloon analogy had never been made (and that goes for the "rubber sheet geometry" of general relativity, too) because it requires some mathematical understanding of higher dimension manifolds.

"The point I keep trying to make is that relativity already contains a very simple and obvious solution, that galaxies are gravity wells, effectively pulling in what is expanding between them. Mathematically the space expanding between galaxies is collapsing into them, resulting in the overall flat space being measured."

Simple, yes. Obvious, no. And a solution to the equations of relativity? -- not possible, since we know the universe is expanding.

"Physically, since what is falling into galaxies is therefore matched by what is expanding out from them and radiating for billions of lightyears, an area far larger then the area of mass contraction, light is the cosmological constant."

Only in a steady state universe.

"The only real theoretical impediment to this model is the assumption photons travel as magical point particles, whose wave function is smeared across the universe."

That's your own assumption. Not of any theorist I know of.

"If we consider the possibility that photons actually expand when released and what is received is a sample of the wave front, much as Eric Reiter's experiments showed, the optical explanation for redshift would seem much more obvious, but that would mean dismantling the cultural edifice of Big Bang theory and once a belief system gains sufficient momentum, it takes alot to kill it. Probably a wooden stake through the heart."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. If you drop the hyperbole and rhetoric and take the Hoyle-Gold steady state cosmology as your model, you might make a sensible argument. Just filling in the gaps with your personal beliefs doesn't enhance it.

Best,

Tom

"I accept that you do not follow what I am saying."

You don't make it easy, James -- and it is your job to do so, not my job to guess what you are getting at.

"But, consider the meaning of this statement: The choices for all of f=ma were made by nature before its discovery, even back to the origin of the universe."

Newton doesn't deny that. Neither do I.

"If this statement falls flat for you, then, agreement can't happen. However, the problem is clear to me and it will continue to be pointed out."

I understand the statement. However, its meaning cannot be distinguished from "God created the universe." And while that may be true, as Einstein averred, there are two ways of looking at the world: either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle. Science takes nothing as a miracle.

"The theoretical idea that two of the properties in f=ma are left to humans to choose one to belatedly become an independent fundamental indefinable property while the other belatedly becomes a dependent defined property will continue to be challenged."

That's rather a fool's errand, since the properties are mutually dependent -- that's what the equation *says." m = F/a, or F - ma = 0. It's just algebra, James.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"That's rather a fool's errand, since the properties are mutually dependent -- that's what the equation *says." m = F/a, or F - ma = 0. It's just algebra, James."

Here you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between an indefinable property and a defined property.

The rest of your message is irrelevant. It shows drifting on your part.

James Putnam

Tom,

"understanding of higher dimension manifolds."

Higher dimension manifolds are just dandy, if they don't use a basic single dimension ruler as reference. Otherwise the speed of light better increase with the expansion, or it's not relativistic.

"since we know the universe is expanding."

All we "know" is that light from distant galaxies is redshifted and there is microwave background radiation. Beyond that is theory. The only evidence for inflation and dark energy is the mismatch between theory and observation, which constitute rather enormous conceptual conjectures. In what other field would this not lead to questioning the theory? Would you take math like that to the IRS? "My accountant says the account just popped into existence, grew to a billion dollars in less than a second, has been growing by millions ever since and is actually 9 billion larger than what is showing, but we can't find that part yet."

"Just filling in the gaps with your personal beliefs doesn't enhance it."

It's not just my beliefs.

Regards,

John M

"Here you continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between an indefinable property and a defined property."

James, that may be. Do you doubt, however, my ability to read an equation?

"Higher dimension manifolds are just dandy, if they don't use a basic single dimension ruler as reference."

They don't.

"It's not just my beliefs."

The point is, it's also not coherent.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Do you doubt, however, my ability to read an equation?"

Of course not. The algebra was correct. What you do not understand is that the physics property of mass is not defined by any equation that contains f. And furthermore, the physics property of mass is not dependent upon any equation that contains f.

James Putnam

James,

Mathematicians accept that an equation is characterized by 1) equality; 2) transitivity; and 3) reflexivity.

"What you do not understand is that the physics property of mass is not defined by any equation that contains f. And furthermore, the physics property of mass is not dependent upon any equation that contains f."

What is "the physics property of mass?"

Tom

Tom,

"Mathematicians accept that an equation is characterized by 1) equality; 2) transitivity; and 3) reflexivity."

I won't debate what mathematicians accept. I will debate that the current status of mass as a fundamental indefinable property leaves no opportunity for mathematicians to define that which physicists have declared to be indefinable.

The physics property of Mass is resistance to force. I suspect that you were disputing more than this. If you are continuing to think that mass can be defined in terms of force, then that is not possible. Furthermore, mass cannot be defined by any property, or any equation containing that property, that is itself defined in terms of mass.

James Putnam

"The physics property of Mass is resistance to force."

That's what Newton's second law (F = ma) *says.* m = F/a

Tom,

LOL. Your criteria for coherent is whatever it takes to support the communal faith based model, since observation won't be so cooperative.

Jesus Saves.

Regards,

John M