Tom,

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

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

And so does F=ma say that mass is resistance to force. The point is that m=F/a does not define mass. Whereas, f=ma does define force. F=ma begins as an empirical equation containing two undefined properties. Physicist decided that in order to proceed with making the equation useful, one or the other of force or mass would have to be accepted as a fundamental indefinable property. Then the other could be defined in terms of it and distance and time. This process is not reversible merely by solving the equation in different forms.

There are just two ways to reverse it. One is to declare force to be a fundamental indefinable property and then define mass in terms of it and distance and time. The other is to learn that both properties can be defined in terms of the pre-existing properties of distance and time. 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.

Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Its units of kilograms are not defined in terms of Newtons, meters and seconds. A property is represented in physics equations by its units. It is not possible to define Newtons in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds, and then define kilograms in terms of Newtons, meters an seconds. Neither Newtons nor kilograms are pre-existing units.

Nature has already made the choice as to whether mass is a fundamental indefinable property, or, force is a fundamental indefinable property, or, neither are fundamental indefinable properties. The choice was not left for us to make. The one solution that we receive direction from empirical evidence for, is to define the units for both force and mass in terms of the units of the empirical evidence.

When we have this accomplished correctly we will find that all equations of physics embrace the new units by making clear sense physically, and, displaying fundamental unity at every step along the way. That fundamental unity follows directly from from retaining dependence for both force and mass directly on the empirical evidence of acceleration.

This is what my work is about. No unfounded claims. No guesses, educated or otherwise. No artificial fundamental indefinable units. And, direct dependence upon empirical evidence is constantly maintained.

This claim of mine is not to be interpreted to mean that I have solved all of physics problems or have defined all of nature.

James Putnam

Tom,

The following statement was not correct:

"F=ma begins as an empirical equation containing two undefined properties."

It should have read that: F=ma begins as an empirical equation containing four undefined properties. Those properties are force, mass, distance and time. Both distance and time are naturally indefinable by reason of their being the properties of empirical evidence. There are no pre-existing properties by which to define the properties of empirical evidence. Force and mass are not properties in which empirical evidence is expressed. They are inferred to exist by empirical evidence, but, the empirical evidence is acceleration and its properties are just distance and time.

There are pre-existing properties of distance and time that are naturally indefinable and come with F=ma. There remain the two inferred properties of force and mass. They must be defined in terms of the properties of distance and time or a human choice must be made as to declaring one of them to be an artificial indefinable property.

James Putnam

Tom,

"Um ... if the wave function doesn't collapse, there is no dice playing involved."

"The point is, it's also not coherent."

You are certainly entitled to think reality exists along some fourth dimension of time and that it continuously branches out into multiverses/worlds, in order not to collapse the wave function, because there is no way to distinguish between the determined past and the probabilistic future, while I'm entitled to think it is that change turns future into past and it's this very physical dynamic which collapses probability into actuality, but neither of us can really speak for the likes of Einstein and Minkowski. Though I'd like to think they got as far as they did, by not being doctrinaire followers of fashion. Otherwise we would still be trying to figure out the ether, not why that cat is both dead and alive.

Oh, wait, that problem has been solved! It is both.

Regards

John M

  • [deleted]

  • Post #244

"The point is that m=F/a does not define mass. Whereas, f=ma does define force."

James, they are the same equation. It's as if one were to say, "See Spot run," or "Spot is seen running."

"Force and mass are not properties in which empirical evidence is expressed. They are inferred to exist by empirical evidence, but, the empirical evidence is acceleration and its properties are just distance and time."

Not really. Acceleration is measured in terms of space (the slope of a curve), while time is measured by marks on a straight line. It's the combination of line and curve that gives us a measure of acceleration, but we never "see" it. And we experience acceleration only relatively -- all motion is relative. In fact, as Einstein explained, in a closed elevator in deep space away from a gravity source, one could not distinguish the acceleration of the floor of the elevator pushing up against one's feet, from gravity pulling down.

There is no empirical evidence for acceleration.

Best,

Tom

John,

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

You seem to think that without a theory of everything, we don't have a theory of anything.

"Jesus Saves."

Moses invests.

Best,

Tom

" ... I'm entitled to think it is that change turns future into past and it's this very physical dynamic which collapses probability into actuality"

You're entitled to think anything you wish, John. It's making "probability," "collapse" and "actuality" objectively meaningful that takes work.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

""The point is that m=F/a does not define mass. Whereas, f=ma does define force.""

"James, they are the same equation. It's as if one were to say, "See Spot run," or "Spot is seen running.""

Tom, This is basic physics. You do not know basic physics. You have to know it. Mass is an indefinable property. Force is a defined property. You respond with this See Spot nonsense! If you don't want to know this then ignore it, but, don't respond as if I am being stupid. Read it in a physics book and then attack the authors for being stupid. Start with Sears and Zemansky. Write a paper exposing their error. Be sure to include your winning point about "See Spot run".

""Force and mass are not properties in which empirical evidence is expressed. They are inferred to exist by empirical evidence, but, the empirical evidence is acceleration and its properties are just distance and time.""

"Not really. Acceleration is measured in terms of space (the slope of a curve), while time is measured by marks on a straight line. It's the combination of line and curve that gives us a measure of acceleration, but we never "see" it. And we experience acceleration only relatively -- all motion is relative. In fact, as Einstein explained, in a closed elevator in deep space away from a gravity source, one could not distinguish the acceleration of the floor of the elevator pushing up against one's feet, from gravity pulling down."

"There is no empirical evidence for acceleration."

Ok, This then is for other readers: We receive all information in the form of photons. Photons deliver information about the acceleration of particles. We receive only information about the accelerations of particles. The received information then causes acceleration of particles. The information we learn from is acceleration.

We can distinguish between acceleration and gravity. The Einstein example demonstrates deliberate disregard for evidence. The elevator is closed because the evidence of sight refutes Einstein's claim. Also, we can tell the difference even with the elevator being closed. The force pushing the person upward will cause distortion for the length of their body that is consistent with constant force. The gravity field will cause bodily distortion that decreases with height.

James Putnam

Tom,

"You seem to think that without a theory of everything, we don't have a theory of anything."

And you seem to think particular theories are inviolate. The fact is that people have been constructing and dismantling theories for as long as they have been cognisant. Religions are theories, just that the agencies of the objects, fields and frames(earth, sun, wind, fire, etc.) are anthropomorphic. Monotheism just declares it all to be one agent. Epicycles were a theory. Angels dancing on the head of a pin was a theory. Ether was a theory.

Now you have one theory which can't distinguish between past and future, so its adherents declare there is no difference and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance. Then you have another theory that can't seem to reconcile the determinism of the past and the probability of the future and its adherents are willing to accept reality must branch out at every point of quantum decision and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance.

Probability is the coming together of two or more frames of reference, without any larger frame to predetermine the outcome.

Collapse is the process of this input coming together.

Actuality is the physical mass and energy of which these frames consist.

Regards,

John M

"You do not know basic physics. You have to know it."

Fortunately, I do know basic algebra. What language is your basic physics written in? Please provide a translation key.

Brouwer called mathematics "a languageless activity of the mind." Is 'basic physics' a languageless activity of your mind? How does one learn to speak it?

"Photons deliver information about the acceleration of particles."

Not if all motion is relative.

"We can distinguish between acceleration and gravity. The Einstein example demonstrates deliberate disregard for evidence. The elevator is closed because the evidence of sight refutes Einstein's claim."

What evidence of sight? There's nothing to see in a closed elevator except the walls, which are stationary with respect to the observer.

"Also, we can tell the difference even with the elevator being closed. The force pushing the person upward will cause distortion for the length of their body that is consistent with constant force."

So does gravity. What's the difference?

"The gravity field will cause bodily distortion that decreases with height."

The height of what? Einstein's thought experiment is conducted far from the influence of a gravity field.

Best,

Tom

"And you seem to think particular theories are inviolate."

No I don't.

"The fact is that people have been constructing and dismantling theories for as long as they have been cognisant. Religions are theories, just that the agencies of the objects, fields and frames(earth, sun, wind, fire, etc.) are anthropomorphic. Monotheism just declares it all to be one agent. Epicycles were a theory. Angels dancing on the head of a pin was a theory. Ether was a theory."

So what?

"Now you have one theory which can't distinguish between past and future, so its adherents declare there is no difference and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance. Then you have another theory that can't seem to reconcile the determinism of the past and the probability of the future and its adherents are willing to accept reality must branch out at every point of quantum decision and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance."

Understanding the depth of one's ignorance isn't logically possible.

"Probability is the coming together of two or more frames of reference, without any larger frame to predetermine the outcome."

It is? Then probable outcomes don't physically exist.

"Collapse is the process of this input coming together."

Since you claim there's no frame of reference for the outcome, however, one would never be able to distinguish collapse from non-collapse.

"Actuality is the physical mass and energy of which these frames consist."

But since according to you, there is no probable outcome, and no knowledge of collapse vs, non-collapse, we also can't know what "these frames" are made of.

Congratulations, John -- you have just created the logical framework for -- quess what?

The many worlds hypothesis.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

""You do not know basic physics. You have to know it.""

"Fortunately, I do know basic algebra. What language is your basic physics written in? Please provide a translation key.

Brouwer called mathematics "a languageless activity of the mind." Is 'basic physics' a languageless activity of your mind? How does one learn to speak it?"

The fact remains that you do not understand the difference between an indefinable property and a defined property in physics. You are unfamiliar with the basics of theoretical physics.

""Photons deliver information about the acceleration of particles.""

"Not if all motion is relative."

It makes no difference whether the motion is relative or not. The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles.

""We can distinguish between acceleration and gravity. The Einstein example demonstrates deliberate disregard for evidence. The elevator is closed because the evidence of sight refutes Einstein's claim.""

"What evidence of sight? There's nothing to see in a closed elevator except the walls, which are stationary with respect to the observer."

""Also, we can tell the difference even with the elevator being closed. The force pushing the person upward will cause distortion for the length of their body that is consistent with constant force.""

"So does gravity. What's the difference?"

""The gravity field will cause bodily distortion that decreases with height.""

"The height of what? Einstein's thought experiment is conducted far from the influence of a gravity field."

The above exchange demonstrates that Einstein's example is doctored to fit with his conclusion.

James Putnam

"You are unfamiliar with the basics of theoretical physics."

You keep saying this as if you think it is relevant. If it is relevant, how do I keep refuting your claims based on the basics of relativity?

"The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles."

*Not* if all motion is relative the constant speed of light. Do photons move faster or slower than light?

Tom,

"Then probable outcomes don't physically exist."

That doesn't mean there are not frames which can make predictions. I go to the races and read the form and it gives quite a mathematical analysis of the potential odds of any particular horse winning a race, but that is not sufficient to determine it. Even "fixed" races don't always turn out as expected.

"Since you claim there's no frame of reference for the outcome,"

The frame of reference for the outcome is the outcome, ie. what emerges from these factors coming together. For instance, there are ten potential winners before a race, but only one actual winner after it.

"But since according to you, there is no probable outcome, and no knowledge of collapse vs, non-collapse, we also can't know what "these frames" are made of."

Sez you. Might the problem be your own assumptions are flawed?

"The many worlds hypothesis."

You and I constitute different frames and while there might be some meeting of the minds, there is certainly no merging, but this polarization doesn't mean there is no connection. The problem with the multiverse hypothesis is it conflates one with oneness, unit with unity. You can have endless connections between different frames, but that doesn't mean the result is a singular unit. The universe isn't some ball floating in spaceless space, along with other such universes. It is infinite, with only horizon lines as the ultimate limit to any particular frame. There is no central frame to determine the interactions, because the absolute is neutral space, not a point.

Regards,

John M

Hey, I got a quote on the front page of Nautilus!

POPULAR ON NAUTILUS

The best comments from the most lively recent discussions.

While many flowering plants emit scents for the purpose of attracting the right pollinators, this article introduces yet another reason for certain flower smells--VOCs.

-- Comment by earthling

BIOLOGY

Learning to Speak Shrub

At risk of getting semantically obtuse: Upon contemplating the concept of a multiverse, does it not become just another aspect of the universe?...

-- Comment by Rich Dailey

MATTER

Beyond the Horizon of the Universe

It's not that the present "moves" from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what is, turns future into past.

-- Comment by John Brodix Merryman Jr.

    "Might the problem be your own assumptions are flawed?"

    No. I followed what *you* said to its logical conclusion. They are your assumptions, not mine. I've been telling you all long, John, that one can rationalize anything one wishes to make up.

    To get a true deduction from first principles, one has to familiarize oneself with the first principles, and ensure that they are self consistent.

    "The universe isn't some ball floating in spaceless space, along with other such universes. It is infinite, with only horizon lines as the ultimate limit to any particular frame. There is no central frame to determine the interactions, because the absolute is neutral space, not a point."

    As I said.

    You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim.

    Best,

    Tom

    Congratulations, John. That certainly underscores their promise to be "a new kind of science magazine."

    I liked Laura Mersini-Houghton's take on what "multiverse" means. She explains that we know the universe is finite ... though, "If I have a collection of objects, and the entirety of that collections is infinite -- that would be the multiverse."

    This is perfectly legal mathematics. A "finite set of infinite things," as I explained in my last essay's end-note -- and covered quite well by Hermann Weyl's little book, *The Continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis.* That book was written almost a hundred years ago.

    Tom,

    "You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim."

    I'm sorry that I seem to have to use a little basic physical sense to try and peer through the symbology of math physics is encased in. Math is a useful tool, but when it becomes religion, all bets are off, because it becomes a cultural movement, not a logical system.

    To ask a simple question; Does the temperature of absolute zero equate to a point, or to a vacuum?

    Another; Is a dimensionless point physically real, or mathematical convenience?

    Regards,

    John M

    Tom,

    " we know the universe is finite"

    ?

    You can't even qualify that with a "we think the universe is finite?"

    At what point does our knowledge of the universe go beyond conjecture into the realms of complete certainty? I think if you examine the history of human speculation, that is the point where one slides off the edge of vital conjecture into stale dogma.

    Regards,

    John M