Ripping Apart Einstein

Thomas Ray

"In physics, I say, there are two rules that must be followed if we are to learn that which empirical evidence is making known to us. First: Meters and seconds are accepted as being naturally indefinable."

You can't even get a measurement theory from that, James. Which I guess is why you think "theory" is a dirty word.

James Putnam

Tom,

That is a worthy critique. I will prepare a careful response. What I think of theory is: Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns. I would not describe theory as a dirty word.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns."

So algebra is worthless, too?

James Putnam

""Theory is the practice of inventing substitutes to serve in place of unknowns.""

"So algebra is worthless, too?"

Theory has usually been a useful substitute while waiting to learn what is real.

Algebra is not worthless.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

" ... waiting to learn what is real."

That's called revelation, not science.

James Putnam

Tom quoting me: " ... waiting to learn what is real."

Tom: "That's called revelation, not science."

It is called discovery and it results from pursuing empirical evidence and letting it lead our conclusions. Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us."

So thought Aristotle. Why are we not doing physics his way?

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

Referring to a Swarup you might mean A. Swarup. To those like me: Maddening is an old-fashioned word that means very angry. I am amused rather than annoyed: Proliferation of infinite answers means their quick increase in number. Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use? Infinite means inconclusive.

My experience with you and your credo so far lets me doubt that a discussion with you will provide anything convincing. I see Horava's arguments stronger than yours.

Eckard

James Putnam

Tom,

""Real is what empirical evidence is communicating to us.""

"So thought Aristotle. Why are we not doing physics his way?"

That box again? I do not fit in your box. I will be continuing returning physics equations away from their theoretical forms back into their natural empirical forms. The solutions are direct. The indirect practice of loosely explaining a property by saying it is a measure of some other property is eliminated.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"That box again? I do not fit in your box."

Read Aristotle, and I think you will find that you do.

James Putnam

""That box again? I do not fit in your box.""

"Read Aristotle, and I think you will find that you do."

Ok you understand Aristotle. Ok you describe what I do as following Aristotle. The problem with you doing that is that you do not understand my work. Youre descriptions of it are not descriptions of it. You will not even move off of first base. First base is understanding the fundamental importance of what is said in that Sears and Zemansky quote. There are three fundamental indefinable properties of physics mechanics. They are mass, length, and time. That has been true since the time of Newton and is true today for physics. Is this wrong in your opinion?

I asked you how many sources are enough?

James Putnam

[deleted]

" ... you do not understand my work. Youre descriptions of it are not descriptions of it."

Understand, James, that I am trying to get you to compare your work with conventional physics. It's the only way that I or anyone else will ever understand what you mean. When your results conflict with what we already know, you can't just dig in your heels and say, "You don't understand." You need a new *theory* that uses your assumptions and makes contrary predictions -- and thereby explains that what we know is only *apparently* true and not fundamental. If your results don't conflict with what we know, they are superfluous assumptions.

Einstein, noting that Kaluza and Klein had explained electromagnetic phenomena by adding a fifth dimension, allowed that adding more dimensions solves a lot of problems (even today, superstring theory, the legacy of Kaluza-Klein, is mathematically complete) -- though he added that one must also explain why reality is *apparently* only four dimensional. That, we have not yet managed to do.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

Last was mine.

Thomas Ray

Eckard,

"Proliferation of infinite answers means their quick increase in number."

No it doesn't. Many functions grow quickly and approach infinity asymptotically.

"Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use?"

Strictly speaking, infinity isn't an answer. That is *very* useful information.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

"You don't understand." You need a new *theory* that uses your assumptions and makes contrary predictions -- and thereby explains that what we know is only *apparently* true and not fundamental. If your results don't conflict with what we know, they are superfluous assumptions."

If it of no benefit to you or I for you to make judgments about that which you don't understand. You don't understand because you are unfamiliar with my work. Then there is also your own contrary ideas. Our latest discussion about the physics definition of a defined and a undefined property is of great importance for you to understand. That difference isn't even from my work. It shows that there is too large a difference in how each of us views physics to even get started communicating successfully.

I have started again and I have no need to work to convince you that Sears and Zemansky correctly explained that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics. Yes I have explained why it is a problem for physics. No I don't have to convince you that an undefined mass is a problem for physics. I can proceed forward without having to repeat and discuss that Sears and Zemansky quote. I have chosen to define mass and you either understand why that is important or you don't. I am not going to try to get your agreement.

James Putnam

Eckard Blumschein

Tom,

My dictionary tells me: Proliferation of something means its quick increase in number. In your sentence ("calculations return a maddening proliferation of infinite answers") it is obvious to me that proliferation here refers to the number of answers, not to "functions grow quickly and approach infinity asymptotically".

I wrote:"Isn't an infinite answer, let's say it polite, strictly speaking of no use?" I meant that a useful answer must be complete and not a sentence that does never come to an end.

You replied: "Strictly speaking, infinity isn't an answer. That is *very* useful information." I can only guess what you meant with "infinite answers", and I would like to warn everybody about using the word infinity without due care.

Eckard

Thomas Ray

"Our latest discussion about the physics definition of a defined and a undefined property is of great importance for you to understand."

No it isn't. I understand very well that definitions are always taken in reference to other definitions. You're hanging onto a thread made of nothing but twaddle.

James Putnam

"No it isn't. I understand very well that definitions are always taken in reference to other definitions."

This statement is irrelevant to what I said. "I have started again and I have no need to work to convince you that Sears and Zemansky correctly explained that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics."

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

" ... a useful answer must be complete and not a sentence that does never come to an end."

That's not the case when a result returns infinity. For example, the sum of an infinite series of terms can be finite or infinite. In any case, the series has a beginning and end. Both results consitute a closed logical judgment of how the series behaves and therefore contribute useful information to a problem.

Thomas Ray

"Let me know sometime when you do understand that mass is not a defined property and that it is a problem for physics."

Let me know when you find someone who agrees that this is a problem for physics. You won't, James. You think that a professional physicist will give you a different answer -- ask one. Ask many.

« Previous Page Next Page »