Mathematics and Empirical Evidence can Reveal Truths If Physicists Eliminate Theorists’ Tricks by James A Putnam

Hi Jose P. Koshy,

Thank you for expressing your opinion about my essay. I think I could have written it better, but, I don't think I could have added to it. Choices had to be made. I will be happy to read your essay.

"I do not get the logic why you removed mass from the empirical units. "

Expressing my response from my viewpoint: I didn't remove mass from empirical units. I called for the removal of its indefinable status. Mass is clearly inferred to exist from empirical data. That empirical data never contains units of kilograms. It always and ever consists of measures of distance and time. The empirical evidence for f=ma consists entirely of patterns in changes of velocities. Before mass is known to exist, there are patterns of changes of velocities that are graphed as measures of velocity with respect to measures of time. The only units involved in this graphing stage are meters and seconds.

An inspection of graphs of patterns of changes of velocities reveals that there are two other properties that are inferred to exist. The most obvious is 'force'. We don't know what force is, but we see what it does. Secondly it is seen that the patterns in changes of velocities, for the same force but on different objects, also vary. The reason why they vary is unknown, but we see that something causes it to vary and we name that cause as 'mass'. At this point neither force nor mass has units. The only units in existence are those of the empirical evidence, meaning the units in which the patterns in changes of velocities are graphed. Yet both mass and force need units by which they may be both measured and then represented in physics equations. The names mean nothing to the equations. The units mean everything. In the future use of a physics equation, it is the units and their mathematical relationships, accurately modeled, among them that will reveal truths to us.

Before any step is taken to assign units to either force or mass, it is necessary to recognize that it is the empirical evidence that has gotten us started and it must be the empirical evidence that moves us forward into producing other physics equations. What I mean is that we must receive our guidance from the empirical evidence. To be more exact: All properties inferred to exist from examination of empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as that empirical evidence is itself expressed. That empirical evidence is expressed in units of meters and seconds only.

The reason why both force and mass must have units that consist of combinations of meters and seconds only, is that if this is not done, then, to assign either of them indefinable units is to say that we believe that empirical evidence appears to us to have nothing to reveal about the natures of either force or mass. If we accept this position, then in order to move forward we must assign indefinable units to at least one of them. That is what was done and remains the case today. Mass was arbitrarily chosen to be assigned indefinable units. In other words, The nature of mass cannot be revealed by physics equations for the reason that its indefinable status was an admission that empirical evidence did not reveal its nature to us.

Taking this a step further, the universe operates in an orderly manner. The fact that the universe operates in an orderly manner proves that there is one cause for all effects. The existence of one cause for all effects means that fundamental unity exists. That fundamental unity might have been revealed to us by the empirical evidence of f=ma, but, was not recognized by us. If this is what occurred, then we permanently removed fundamental unity from physics equations by the act of making mass an indefinable property with indefinable units. In order to establish fundamental unity into physics equations, mass must be made a definable property. This cannot be accomplished by choosing force to be an indefinable property instead of mass. Both force and mass must be 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 only pre-existing units are meters and seconds. The units for both force and mass must consist of combinations of meters and seconds.

looking back at f=-ma, it does give us guidance as to how to make both force and mass defined properties. Solving for f/m=a shows that the combinations of meters and seconds for the ratio of force to mass must reduce to units of acceleration. Some inspection will show that there are a few different possible combinations that will reduce to units of acceleration. However, the one solution that moves physics equations forward while clearly retaining fundamental unity is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration. In other words m=1/a where a is to be determined. To answer your question about how I replace the units of kilograms, I replaced them with units of inverse acceleration. To answer anyone's question about what is that acceleration that is represented by the inverse of mass: It is the acceleration of light. It is the acceleration of light that is the single cause for all mechanical effects in the universe including those of electromagnetism and those of gravity. To go further would best wait to see if there is interest. However, my work has been on the Internet since 2001 and it explains how the variation of the velocity of light causes all mechanical effects. Actually it causes all effects, but it can't be shown to that extent so long as light is interpreted as a mechanical property. Mechanical properties explain only mechanical effects.

A last point to be made. What I have written concerning mass is not a single isolated incident that I might have misrepresented. There is a second incident that is just as revealing the mistake of theoretical physicists to introduce artificial indefinable units. The second property for which the same erroneous treatment was given is temperature. Temperature is to this day, other than in my work, an indefinable property. For both mass and temperature, and for any physicist that reads this, their natures remain officially unknown. In my work, the act of defining both mass and force led quickly to defining temperature. There is one last problem and that is the definition of electric charge, but, that case is really special by virtue of it being even more difficult to expose and correct.

Much of what I have written here is covered in my essays entered in all of the essay contests, plus, I have been debating these matters for years here and elsewhere. There has been, of course, for all this time, my website newphysicstheory.com.

James Putnam

There is no avoiding this change in theoretical physics: The removal of mass' indefinable status. Mass is clearly inferred to exist from empirical data. That empirical data never contains units of kilograms. It always consists of measures of distance and time. The empirical evidence for f=ma consists entirely of patterns in changes of velocities. Before mass was recgnized to exist, there were patterns of changes of velocities,i.e. measures of velocity with respect to measures of time. The only units involved at this stage were meters and seconds.

An inspection of graphs of patterns of changes of velocities reveals that there are two other properties that are inferred to exist. The most obvious is 'force'. We don't know what force is, but we see what it does. Secondly it is seen that the patterns in changes of velocities for the same force, but on different objects, also varies. The reason why they vary remains unknown, but it is seen that something causes it to vary and we name that cause as 'mass'.

At this point neither force nor mass has units. The only units in existence are those of the empirical evidence, meaning the units in which the patterns in changes of velocities are graphed. Yet both mass and force need units by which they may be both measured and then represented in physics equations. The names mean nothing to the equations. The units mean everything. In physics equation, it is the units and their mathematical relationships, accurately modeled, that reveal truths to us.

Before any step is taken to assign units to either force or mass, it is necessary to recognize that it is the empirical evidence that has gotten us started and it must be the empirical evidence that moves us forward into additional physics equations. What I mean is that we must receive our guidance from the empirical evidence. To be more exact: All properties inferred to exist from examination of empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as that empirical evidence is itself expressed. The empirical evidence is acceleration. That empirical evidence is expressed in units of meters and seconds only.

The reason why both force and mass must have units that consist of combinations of meters and seconds only is that, if this is not done, then, to assign either of them indefinable units is to say that we believe that empirical evidence reveals nothing about the natures of either force or mass. If physicists continue to accept this position, then to move forward we must assign indefinable units to at least one of them.

That is what was done and remains the case today. Mass was arbitrarily chosen to be assigned indefinable units. Indefinable units represents an indefinable property. An indefinable property whose nature remains unknown. In other words, The nature of mass cannot be revealed by physics equations for the reason that its indefinable status was an admission that empirical evidence did not reveal its nature.

The universe operates in an orderly manner. The fact that the universe operates in an orderly manner proves that there is one cause for all effects. The existence of one cause for all effects means that fundamental unity exists. Fundamental unity might have been revealed to us by the empirical evidence of f=ma, but, was not recognized by us. If this is what occurred, then we permanently removed fundamental unity from physics equations by the act of making mass an indefinable property with indefinable units.

In order to establish fundamental unity for physics, mass must be made a definable property. This cannot be accomplished by choosing force to be an indefinable property instead of mass. Both force and mass must be 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 only pre-existing units before either mass or force are meters and seconds. For fundamental unity to be returned to physics equations, the units for both force and mass must consist of combinations of meters and seconds.

looking back at f=-ma, it gave us guidance as to how to make both force and mass defined properties. Solving for f/m=a shows that the combinations of meters and seconds for the ratio of force to mass must reduce to units of acceleration. Inspection will show that there are a few possible combinations that will reduce to units of acceleration. However, the one solution that moves physics equations forward while clearly retaining fundamental unity is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration. In other words m=1/a? where a? is yet to be revealed.

I replace the artificially indefinable units of kilograms with units of inverse acceleration. To answer anyone's question, I say and show that the acceleration that is represented by the inverse of mass is the acceleration of light. It is the acceleration of light that is the single cause for all mechanical effects in the universe including those of electromagnetism and those of gravity.

What I have written concerning mass is not a single isolated incident. There is a second incident that is just as revealing of the mistake of theoretical physicists to introduce artificial indefinable units. The second property for which the same erroneous treatment was given is temperature. Temperature is, to this day, officially an indefinable property. In my work, defining both mass and force led quickly to defining temperature. There remains a problem with the definition of electric charge. However, the task of correcting the definition of electric charge is too much to include in this message.

It is mentioned in this message for the purpose of making it known that the magnitude of electric charge is the only true fully universal constant, and eliminating the circular definition of electric charge with an empirically directed definition reveals an incremental universally constant measure of time that produces full fundamental unity into physics equations.

James Putnam

Adding a correction to my message above so that a universally more important correction can be made to theoretical physics.

"Fundamental unity might have been revealed to us by the empirical evidence of f=ma, but, was not recognized by us. If this is what occurred, then we permanently removed fundamental unity from physics equations by the act of making mass an indefinable property with indefinable units."

Corrected:

Fundamental unity was revealed to natural philosophers by the empirical evidence of variations in patterns of changes of velocities of objects, but, it went unrecognized then and now by physicists. This monumental misstep is the continuation of mass as an indefinable property with indefinable units. Natural philosophy cannot return until this correction is made. This correction will lead to the undoing of theoretical interference into the equations of physics. It was theoretical interference that entered f=ma when mass was accepted as a permanent unknown property. When mass becomes a known property to physicists, it will mark the beginning of learning all that has been missing from that which empirical evidence has to teach us about the mechanical operation of the universe. Physicists will know that they know what mass is when they have defined mass in the same terms as which its empirical evidence is expressed. Its empirical evidence is patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Velocity and its changes are expressed in physics equations in terms of meters and seconds only. F/m=a leads us to know that the units of f/m must reduce to those of acceleration. They must themselves consist of combinations of meters and seconds in order to meet this empirical requirement. The correction to the original error imposed upon f=ma by theoretical intrusion, is to accept units of inverse acceleration for those of mass. This conclusion is based upon inverse acceleration making sense while reintroducing fundamental unity into the equations of physics from their beginning and remaining seen in the equations that follow. The property whose acceleration is represented as 'mass' in physics equations is the property of light. it is the variation of both the speed and direction of light that produces the effects that are the empirical evidence of physics.

James Putnam

Hi Akinbo,

I think I will take my show on the road. Years have passed. Contests have come and gone. I have presented many of my mathematical results, but not all. I have a few more important ones. My website does very well for Google searches of "new physics theory" and "new theoretical physics". It is long overdue for me returning my full attention to it. I am finding that my work is received better at Academia.edu. I will improve my presence there also.

With regard to each one of our's ideas, they are all quite different. Mine are very different from yours and the others. Fqxi.org is a very special place on the Internet for discussing one's views about physics. Most of what is tolerated here would not be tolerated in other forums. What makes this even more remarkable is that it is a serious physics organization. Its contests include submissions by true professionals. Amateurs and professionals engage in discussions. One can put their ideas forward here for testing by others. Mine don't pass the test here. I hope for better results for you and the others. I have papers that need written and placed on the Internet.

James Putnam

The magnitude of electric charge is the same as the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters, the radius of the simplified hydrogen atom. No matter how many times I point out this amazing occurrence, it is ignored by others. So, I will write a paper explaining how the cause of this occurrence is in the definition of units. The units are the vehicles by which errors about the natures of properties become pushed into physics equations. There are other errors that followed this route, and, they have been explained in my essays and discussions. With regard to the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters it is the only truly universal, both local and remote, constant. The length of 4.8x10-11 meters is a local constant. The two together form the speed of light. They are the two givens of magnitudes of constants. All other constants can be calculated from physical conditions. This includes the 'Universal Gravitational' constant for which I have also provided the calculation.

James Putnam

Dear Yafet,

I have been in every contest thus far and serious questions have been very rare. Thank you for being here, it makes my receiving eight ones thus far inconsequential. Here is my answer: Gravity type waves will be observed, and, they will be observed locally as patterns of changes of velocities of objects. My work begins and ends with demonstrating the existence of fundamental unity. The one cause for all effects is the variation of the speed and direction of light. Skipping past trying to establish that in this message, I instead offer an answer as to what will be seen and why. We will see variations of velocities of objects that are effects that we can correctly attribute to that which theoretical physics identifies as a fundamental force called gravity. I say there is no fundamental force of gravity. This conclusion follows from defining mass. Skipping past that also, I will suggest that there will be an observable effect showing the difference between that which can be attributed to space-time versus the variation of the velocity of objects caused only by the variation of the velocity of light. So, my answer is that the correctness or incorrectness of my work rests with this other effect. This other effect results from the control of the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light is orderly. It behaves consistently throughout the universe because it is caused to be consistent throughout the universe. Its cause has no delay. Its cause is instantaneous. Therefore, the second effect is actually the first effect to be observed. Mass throughout the universe is the inverse of the cause of the speed of light and its variation. Any change in mass anywhere will instantaneously affect the speed of light everywhere. Any variation in the local speed of light is in principle observable through the behavior of local photons and their effect on the motion of local objects. The effect that I am describing is this instantaneous behavior of local photons that betrays the variations of masses wherever they may be. Far later there will be observed the arrival of photons that were affected by the motions of masses way back at the origin of the gravitational waves. Those photons travel at the speed of light, but the cause of the control of the velocity of light is instantaneous. Any variation in the cause of the control of the velocity of light is in principle observable everywhere else instantaneously. I suggest that two massive objects orbiting one another far off in the distance affect us now without delay. And, far later affect us again with the arrival of photons that were locally present near the objects and were far more greatly affected by them. I do not deny the existence of relativity type of effects. What I do is remove the theoretical introduction of disunity from physics equations. The new forms of physics equations follow almost automatically. My first essay from the first contest dealt with electric charge and the fine structure constant.

James

Hi Ramin Zahedi,

Thank you for your message. I have read your paper. You did accept full guidance from empirical evidence as well as adopting a theoretical interpretation of that evidence. Your mathematics exists for the purpose of counting things. You counted things that are believed to be physically real based upon empirical evidence. If your mathematics revealed anything that was not already dictated by the empirical evidence which you relied upon, I could not find it to be so. Examples of your accepting guidance for your work from empirical evidence are your adoption of special relativity including, of course, E=mc(sup)2(/sup), also, your adoption of discreteness as well as the use of both vector and scalar fields. You could know none of this without learning it from empirical evidence. Please let me know what your opinion is and why. Thank you again.

James Putnam

Working on the introduction to my website. Here is what it says at this time:

"Theoretical physics is a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is not the foundation science it is often portrayed as. It is not about the foundation of life and intelligence. It relies solely upon empirical evidence in the form of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Those patterns consist always and only of mechanical effects. We cannot learn what cause is from that evidence only what cause does. Cause remains physics' most pervasive unknown. There are, though, pseudo-theoretical unknowns that result from insufficient understanding of empirical evidence and that which it is communicating to us. Pseudo-unknowns are those properties who's natures go unanswered because physicists don't know how to proceed forward or have unknowingly prepared themselves to miss the empirically revealed answers, due to accepting earlier incorrect guesses that have become accepted parts of physics equations. The first such incorrect guess that was made a part of physics equations was the decision to declare mass to be an artificially indefinable property. The enclosed work consists of reports on the damage that this type of practice results in. In the case of physics' indefinable mass, the damage done was to introduce fundamental disunity into f=ma. This work puts forward a remedy for removing theorists' misleading intrusions into physics equations, allowing the equations to self-reveal empirically supported truths. The first such truth is that empirical evidence does give us guidance on how to define mass. Mass could have been and should have been a defined property. Temperature is another historically recognized artificially indefinable property. Temperature could have been and should have been a defined property. It is imperative that anyone doing physics knows the classic, precise, physics' definition of defined. The historical physics' definition of a defined property is: A defined propery is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Properties are represented in physics equations only by their units. A defined unit is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. In the equation f=ma both force and mass could have been and should have been defined properties. Their units of newton's and kilograms could have been and should have been defined units. The empirical evidence, from which their existence is inferred, provides their pre-existing properties and their pre-existing units by which definitions may be correctly made. The enclosed work shows how to make this correction and others. The results are profoundly different from current theoretical physics. They are empirically directed results."