Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your cordial and wise comments. There is a perspective that my essay represents, it may not be written clearly. It was purposeful on my part to write half of the essay without math, and, then to construct the second half out of somewhat skimpy mathematics. My intent was to put answers on the record. The perspective is governed by the idea that all of physics, except for the properties of space and time and their substitutes length and duration, each of which are permanently indefinable, must be derivable from direct empirical evidence.
I don't mean that experimentation protects physics from a pre-established non-empirical viewpoint The problem to avoid is that that which is called empirical evidence by physicists is thought about, both before and after experimentation, generating expectations which may not themselves be empirically based. The results are often interpreted from already existing perspectives of theoretical physics. Direct empirical evidence often suffers from being bookended by non-empirically established interpretations of theoretical physics.
When I say what it is that I think the speed of light does, the evidence to support my view will be found in interpretations of the effects called time-dilation. I say this because it is the case that there is no direct empirical evidence to support the claim that time affects what objects do and, that objects affect what time does. There also isn't mathematical support for space-contraction. As I repeatedly point out: No one has ever written a physics equation that contained the direct representations of space and time. Both have always been substituted for with object related measurements.
The basis for stating that all of physics properties and their units must be based upon direct empirical evidence is that: The basis for the science of measurements is measurements. Direct empirical evidence never wavers in its form or in its utility. It consists always of measurements of length and duration, i,e,, what mainstream physics, with no direct empirical evidence to support it, calls 'time'. In fact, what I just said is not correct if applied to the form of direct empirical evidence as it exists before the measurement process occurs.
We cannot tell from direct empirical evidence whether or not time and space are absolute. The measurement process consists of discerning patterns of changes of velocities of objects. We learn only what objects do. An object is something that has a velocity that can be caused to change. Most of what we learn is learned by discerning patterns in object behaviors and attaching our choice of meaning, from our individual store of innate knowledge about what various patterns of object behaviors are telling us about what is occurring in the outside world. All of that information consists of signs. None of it informs us of its meaning.
We receive information communicated to us in original mixes of very small incremental bits of measurements of length and duration. which is delivered to us through object behaviors. The information can consist of signs arriving from any location in the universe and from any time in the past. Out of that, I call it the photon storm, we find possible patterns, and attach most likely meanings. The information we use has been consistent throughout the existence of the Universe. It has never wavered in its form. If it was changeable, nothing would be knowable.
The Universe itself cannot tolerate change of meaning. Fundamental unity is direct empirical evidence that change of meaning has never happened. The problem for mainstream theoretical physics is that it is founded upon lack of fundamental unity. That property of fundamental unity along with all the rest of meaning available to us has existed since the beginning of the universe. Our opportunity to learn that which the universe is attempting to make known to us requires that we recognize the existence of measurements of length and duration, and, the existence of the single cause for all effects. For theoretical physics, 'all effects' means only mechanical effects.
It should mean any and all effects, however, theory based foremost upon a philosophical beginning that begets a belief in the fundamentals of the universe being mechanical largely limits the level of our understanding. The mechanical belief relegates theoretical physics to the lowest useful form of interpretation of the nature of the universe. Even at this level of understanding, fundamental unity must be present right from the start. If we are not aware of what it is that is being measured and what it is that makes use of this same information to cause understandable effects, then we would not be intelligent.
The point is that we need to establish the existence of the single cause for all effects, along with recognizing at least the mechanical value of its effects, at the beginning of physics. The science of measurements must be given the opportunity to learn that which direct empirical evidence is attempting to reveal to us about the nature of the universe.
The viewpoint that I represent begins under the conditions put forward above. There are three properties that must be recognizable if we are to understand physics effects. We must recognize that all measurements consists of measures of length and duration. We must have the intellectual means to understand that the knowledge we seek is in the patterns that the effects form. Most importantly, we must already reason that there can be just one cause for all effects, and, we must identify this cause as the cause for the first effects that we study.
The indispensable intellectual ingredients for beginning and continuing the science of physics are: 1) Understanding measures of length depend upon object activity; 2) Understanding that measures of duration depend upon object activity; 3) The identity of the fundamental cause for all effects is present when any information is delivered to us. It is the cause for all effects. One of those effects is the delivery of information. The nature of that cause must be found in the delivery of information, including the first information that becomes recognizable for the purpose of establishing the science of physics.
These are the three ingredients of physics knowledge that I point to in my essay. There is never a time when these ingredients change. All information, for the purpose of understanding it from a physics point of view consists solely of measure of length and duration. The cause for all effects, for the purpose of understanding them from a physics point of view, has to exist and be seen in all deliveries of information, especially at the beginning of physics. The effects consist of information about the acceleration of objects. its delivery system is the single cause for all effects. The delivery system consists of photons. Photons inform us about the acceleration of objects. Photons are light. Light both knows acceleration and is the cause of acceleration of objects.
The property that direct empirical evidence first points us to, by means of signing, must be definable at the time of its introduction to us. If this is not the case, then we will fail to understand its nature causing us to fail to understand the natures of all properties that include mass in their formal physics definitions. I show how it is possible to formally define mass in terms of the two physics properties that precede its introduction.
The cause of the effects which we attribute to what we first identify as the property of mass is recognized as the cause of the delivery of the direct empirical evidence for the existence of mass. The definition of mass, and all physics properties that follow it, must be expressible in terms of the two properties of length and duration, and especially that all three properties are made known to us by light. Light must have the means to do this. I demonstrate my understanding level by referring to photons as the delivery system of information.
Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read this and puts in the effort to understand it. I do not assume that this means that readers will automatically agree with me. Comments, both positive and negative, are welcome. Experts, such as Edwin Klingman, to whom I addressed this message because I value his opinion as both a free and thorough thinking professional physicist, are appreciated. I expect the comments to deal with the above message. Unrelated descriptions of physics are welcome elsewhere but please not in this particular thread. I will return tomorrow, the 28th, and reread what I have written for the purpose of eventually writing it well.
Thank you.
James
