Steve,
"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."
Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not rely upon all of the rest of my work. The first error of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics.
Repeating these sentences: "A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics."
There is no need for me to supply a dictionary so that physicists can understand what I am saying in these sentences. The first page of an introductory physics textbook is what is needed:
" College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:
1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."
A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. 聽Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the 聽definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be 聽expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.聽
In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...
Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:
To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "
My work is completely separate from establishing how to define a physics property. It was established without my input. My work begins by revealing to physicists these two points: The first is that both mass and force could have been and should have been made defined properties. The second point is that I have defined mass in accordance with the directive quoted from Sears Zemansky. If you do not like these two points. If you consider them to be unimportant for physics, then our works will definitely differ. Your work will necessarily not include a physics definition for mass. Mine includes a physics definition for mass. Your work will necessarily not include a definition for kilograms. Mine includes a definition for kilograms. You work with properties and units that are loose in meaning to the point that you can write and use E=M as if it was an equation, which it definitely is not. You made use of it when you suggested that the equivalence of mass and energy justified your exchanging the units of kilograms to replace those of Joules as a unit of action. There is no way that E=MC2 can be reduced to E=M except by making units disappear with non-mathematical 'slight-of-hand' handling.
James Putnam