Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Putnam: on 4/10/13 at 16:25pm UTC, wrote Tom, You: "I only say what conventional scientific method says: the truth...

T H Ray: on 4/10/13 at 10:58am UTC, wrote James, I wrote, "I only say what conventional scientific method says: the...

James Putnam: on 4/9/13 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote "I only say what conventional scientific method says: the truth of a...

Thomas Ray: on 4/9/13 at 18:13pm UTC, wrote " ... you wish to insist that the theoretical inventions are the real...

James Putnam: on 4/9/13 at 18:03pm UTC, wrote Tom, "Really, though, who does 'get it' [meaning my "James's" approach to...

Thomas Ray: on 4/9/13 at 17:48pm UTC, wrote "You: 'I just don't get it, James.' 'I know.'" Really, though, who does?...

James Putnam: on 4/9/13 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Tom, You quoting me: "The units of real space and real time are not meters...

Thomas Ray: on 4/9/13 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote "The units of real space and real time are not meters and seconds." Well...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

Boyd Bunton: "Nice share! I am no able ti skip this moment without appreciating you...." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Greg Fantle: "Brush your hair! You look like a homeless person." in The Complexity Conundrum

kurt stocklmeir: "shape of time and space around mass vibrates - some times the shape of time..." in Alternative Models of...

Gary Simpson: "Still waiting for essays to be posted. There are only 5 weeks or so left..." in What Is...

Boyd Bunton: "Its absolutely very helpful put up about the subject. All readers can be..." in Podcast Up: Interacting...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..." in What Is...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 15, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Variability of the Speed of Light by James A. Putnam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is accepted that the speed of light is the fundamental constant C in free space. Free space is assumed to refer to the almost stable conditions that exist away from matter. The effects of matter permeate all of space, but, at sufficiently large distances away from aggregates of matter, those effects can be minimal and quite nearly stable. This paper puts forward the postulate that the presence of matter causes light to slow as it approaches the matter. This change in the speed of light is proposed to be equal but opposite to changes in the speed of freely falling objects due to gravity. What light gives up matter gains, and, vice versa. Equations are derived that demonstrate the positive consequences of a variable speed of light.

Author Bio

I am the Author of http://newphysicstheory.com. I develop original work mainly in physics. I write about physics, life and intelligence. A new physics theory and several essays are available at my website.

Download Essay PDF File




Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 22:46 GMT
James,

As light approaches the Earth, its frequency increases (Pound-Rebka). And now you say its speed decreases. Is the combination (increasing frequency, decreasing speed) reasonable?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 19, 2012 @ 23:49 GMT
Pentcho,

Yes it is. The photon model I mention indicates why this is so. The photon shortens. The information it carries is compressed. However, that is not the whole answer. Please see my essay 'Our Analog Universe' page 3 for the derivation of the origin of frequency and page 5 for the introduction of photon tilt and its relationship to this presentation of a variable speed of light.

Paraphrasing from the 'New Physics Theory' at my website page 47: "... There is also an observation that can be made with respect to how a photon's energy will change as it descends through the Earth's light-field. The velocity of light is decreasing; therefore, the length of the photon is becoming shorter. However, the perpendicular component of photon tilt, which is the origin of electromagnetism, is not shrinking. This situation is analogous to increasing the tilt of the photon. An increased tilt is representative of an increase in electromagnetic energy. ...". Picturing the tilted photon as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The side of the triangle in line with the direction of motion represents the electric field portion. The tilt induced side perpendicular to the direction of motion represents the magnetic field portion.

Since my work shown in my first essay indicates the lack of need of electric and magnetic fields for explaining electromagnetism, I am not stating my position exactly correct when I mentioned the electric and magnetic field sides of the triangle. However, that concept of tilt addresses your concern. The tilted photon arrives with a change in its energy, increased or decreased depending upon whether it descended or ascended through the gravitational field, at an atom that is not rushing toward it but is 'stationary' in the field. This is the situation in the Pound-Rebka experiment. The change in energy prevented the photon from being absorbed until corrective action was taken.

For all readers: I am not saying that this simple model of a photon is true. It is an introductory version. The approach I took in generating the model was to not complicate the photon until the work developed required it. I use the simplest form of model in my essay because the main focus is on providing several results in support of a variable speed of light.

James



Pentcho Valev replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
James,

As light approaches the Earth, its frequency increases exactly as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: f'=f(1+gh/c^2). The emission theory also says that this increase is due to the fact that the speed of light increases in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2).

Let us assume that you are right and the speed of light actually decreases rather than increases. Then it is highly improbable that the emission theory's prediction, f'=f(1+gh/c^2), would continue to hold true. And it IS true, as the Pound-Rebka experiment showed. The only reasonable conclusion, in my view, is that you are wrong. As light approaches the Earth, its speed INCREASES, as predicted by both Newton's emission theory and Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Pentcho,

The practice of treating a photon as a normal freely falling object will give the correct frequency prediction. The Pound-Rebka experiment result is predictable in that manner. I do not disagree with that. I do disagee that that practice demonstrates that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth. The prediction was that the photon energy would increase in an amount analogous to that of a freely falling object. Therefore, treating it like it is a freely falling object will certainly produce the desired result.

When starlight passes the sun it is delayed as well as bent contradicting your position that the speed of light would have increased as the light approached the sun just as it would increase its speed when approaching the Earth. If you still disagree, that is fine, we will simply disagree. I produce far more consistent results than just the increase in energy of a photon approaching the Earth. My opinion is that I am correct.

James




Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 13:30 GMT
Is there really an ascertainable constant speed of visible light, or is there a calculable speed of human sight? As far as I can tell, I am able to see a light source because it remains stationary. The only reason I can see any objects at all is because their surfaces causes visible light to stay in one place long enough for me to see them. When I look up at the night sky, I can easily see the moon and the stars at the same moment I am looking at them. It may be theoretically true that the stars are billions of light years away while the moon is only a couple of hundred thousand miles away, fortunately for me, light from any and all light sources stays still long enough to be observable. I do not appear to see the stars any faster than I see the moon despite the huge disparity in the distances they are away from me. Please, I do not mean this disrespectfully, but all studies of real snowflakes, fingerprints and DNA has proven that real identical states cannot exist. In your equations, you constantly make use of identical numerical symbols, (as do all mathematicians) while this practice does not necessarily make your equations incorrect, it does make each one of them unique. Light is real.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Hi Joe,

It appears to me that our two subject matters are very different. Rather than our discussing the details of yours versus mine, I will just let your statements represent what you think and my statements represent what I think.

James




Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Here is a link to more results, from this variable speed of light approach, pertaining to several thermodynamic properties: The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy. Clausius' discovery is explained beyond its mathematical expression. Its physical meaning is made clear. These results, along with the others mentioned thus far, demonstrate the power of continuity of fundamental theoretical unity. One 'given' and that is all that is needed.

James




Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
James

Light is a definitive, physically existent effect in photons, which is created as the result of an interaction of certain physically existent photons with a specific physically existent state of any given matter. Precisely how this all works is irrelevant at the generic level. The relevant point being that for every given physically existent state of anything, there are many,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Paul,

Please do not disrupt my author's blog with your nonsense. Your message will stay but I will have it stubbed for being both excessively long and irrelevent.

James



Paul Reed replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 05:07 GMT
James

I don't suppose you would care to point out where it is irrelevant? And what exacly is wrong with being long-not that it was that long?

As Joe said above: "light is real"

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear James and Paul,

While it is evident that there is motion in the Universe, there is no such a thing as speed. Motion cannot have a commencement or a cessation. Speed has to have a starting point and a stoppage point. Natural visible light does not move at all. Light only becomes visible when it collides with a surface, and light only travels at the same speed as the surface it adheres to. All lit surfaces travel at the same speed. You can fabricate a laser light and fabricate a light sensor and fabricate a timepiece and fabricate an experiment whereby you can switch the laser beam on from a supposedly fixed position and cause a beam to come to a complete stop on the fixed surface of the light sensor and precisely measure the time it took the laser beam to traverse the two fixed positions and you will come up with a different result every time you do so.

Respectfully,

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Anne Smith wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
James

I stopped reading after equation (8) on top of page 2, reason is:

Between equations (5) and (6) you argue that the right hand side of the equation the minus should be a plus because of the convention you chose. For the same reason the plus on the left hand side of the equation should then change to a minus. Your onesided logic I do not understand, I let it pass but then from equation (7) to (8) I again have a problem. I have learned that the integral from 0 to r of (GM/r^2)dr equals (infinity - GM/r), why are you ignoring the infinity?

Please explain so that I can carry on reading.

best regards - Anne

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Hi Ann,

Wow, you are correct. This abbreviated version is not clearly written and does contain a sign error. I need to explain it.

This paper was not done cut and paste. It was written out while shortening it. Part of the wording that I wrote is not the same as in the original. When I speak of r being very large that should have said when r is equal to the radius of the Earth. The...

view entire post




Paul Reed replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 05:08 GMT
James

“The value of the speed of light is taken to be very close to C in magnitude and is approsimated to be C at the surface of the Earth”

The speed of light is a constant, unless impeded in some way (and you postulate one particular possibility of that), ie anywhere. The value of this speed is entirely dependent on the reference point chosen to effect the comparison of movement, and hence derive a value. All entities are moving, speed/movement are just differentials. And light is no different, it is an entity, moving.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT
I think if we accept the variability of the speed of light in GR, then we must apply the concept on the SR because Einstein first formulate the SR, and basis on the SR he formulated GR. In my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 I adopted that the light beam which is passing through a moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface is equivalent to passing to a medium of refractive index greater than 1. I generalized this concept on GR in order to solve the Pioneer anomaly, the velocity of the light beam or any particle must also decreased when passing through the gravitational field for an observer faraway from this field. I got an exact solution for the Pioneer anomaly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

furthermore by adopting this principle in my MSRT and MGR, I could solve all problems regarded to quantum and relativity see my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 and by this paper I solved all the related problems of quantum tunneling, entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and SN 1987a

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 27, 2012 @ 01:04 GMT
Hi Azzam AlMosallami,

Thank you for your message:

"I think if we accept the variability of the speed of light in GR, then we must apply the concept on the SR because Einstein first formulate the SR, and basis on the SR he formulated GR. In my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 I adopted that the light beam which is passing through a moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface is equivalent to passing to a medium of refractive index greater than 1. I generalized this concept on GR in order to solve the Pioneer anomaly, the velocity of the light beam or any particle must also decreased when passing through the gravitational field for an observer faraway from this field. I got an exact solution for the Pioneer anomaly http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058"

I say you are correct. I did the same except for one possible difference. I found no need for a gravitational field so long as the speed of light varied by slowing as it approaches the Earth. However, I do sometimes in short essays or messages refer to the gravitational field rather than try to explain the details of applying a variable speed of light to account for special relativity effects. Perhaps you do the same. I am studying your essay. It is very nice to communicate with you.

James



Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 28, 2012 @ 02:12 GMT
James,

I really thank you for reading my essay, and I'm very happy for your comment.

I'm also enjoyed when reading your essay, and I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. Also my solution for the Pioneer anomaly is more accurate than the proposed solution of the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly see http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006 According to my solution to the Pioneer anomaly is gives us different approaches for explaining the Hubble's law, and General relativity depending on my Modified special relativity, depending on quantum theory. According to that wormholes in GR can be explained by the same explanation of quantum tunneling and entanglement and that gives new interpretation for faster than light. According to my MSRT in the case of measuring faster than light particles or a light beam depending on distance and time, there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality, and locally the the light speed is the same and equals to c. Locally no particle can exceed light speed in vacuum, and the problem in measuring the light faster than light will be existed in the measuring of time. What I proposed is agreed with the experimental results of OPERA, ICARUS and SN 1987a, and also with the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement, and with what proposed in quantum field theory relative existence the proposed particles Tachyons and other phenomena relative to faster than light in quantum. I have many to say, and I'm ready for more discussion at any point.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 30, 2012 @ 02:04 GMT
Azzam,

It seems our approaches are very different:

"... I found there are ideas we can share. Please read my paper for the exact solution for the unsolved problem in physics regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 My solution is related with what you proposed in your essay. ..."

I read your paper. Picking just one effect length contraction. I read your explanation. I also read in your reply to Peter that: "I proposed the stationary observer of earth will measure the length of the moving train to be the same as if it was stationary. The length of the moving train will not contracted for the earth observer."

Our treatment of time is very different. Also, in my work, the train will length contract. The contraction for the train is a real physical change. The Earth observer will measure that the train contracted.

Our approaches to explaining special relativity type effects are very different.

I also should say more about the effect on refractive index for light as it passes through the moving train. I think that we may not describe it in full in the same way. I will write a separate message addressed to both you and Peter.

James




Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 11:09 GMT
Azzim

Impressive, but how does that work when the beam is propagating in the same direction of the train.

It would seem to require a refractive index smaller than 1.

In your theory does the observer on the embankment see 'light particles' moving. or scattered light from the medium particles in the train frame?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 23:50 GMT
Peter,

Thank you very much for your comment. As proposed in 1949, "Postulate versus Observation in the Special. Theory of Relativity by H. P. ROBERTSON". the light speed inside the moving train relative to an stationary observer on the earth surface is depended only on the absolute value of the velocity of the train. thus according to my MSRT http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0001 the speed of light inside the moving train for an observer stationary on the earth surface will be c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5. In my MSRT I proposed the stationary observer of earth will measure the length of the moving train to be the same as if it was stationary. The length of the moving train will not contracted for the earth observer. The concept of the length contraction according to my MSRT is existed in my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 and by this definition I can apply it on gravity and modify the GR of Einstein, then solving all the problems regarded to quantum gravity and GR. I solved the Pioneer anomaly by adopting this definition. see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 Furthermore, solving all problems in physics regarded to faster than light, quantum tunneling and quantum entanglement, OPERA, ICARUS, and Sn 1987a

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 05:22 GMT
Azzam

Length contraction was conceived of as being an actual alteration in the size of matter (particularly in one direction). It became explainable in terms of observation because of a number of confusions around the variables constitute and how they relate. However, in terms of the observation (seeing) of reality, as opposed to reality itself (which ought to be understood!), there may happen to be effects occurring which affect measurement. But, in trying to discern what that may or may not be, light must be considered as just another entity, moving. Which is what it is. It has no 'mysterious' properties, it just happens to be what enables us to see.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Azzam AlMosallami replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 12:51 GMT
Paul

Have you read my paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

You will see what is the meaning of the length contraction according to the MSRT, it is depending on the the recent experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement. this explanation for the length contraction is different from Einstein depending on the observer is participating in formation the phenomenon, contradicted what was adopted in formulation of the SR.

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
James: You say that the length of a photon is diminishing with its speed. A photon has no mass and no charge, what is the length of a photon ? Or you are meaning the wavelength ? If it is wavelength then we are talking the probability where the photon as a particle has to be found isn't it ? Sorry for my stupid questions.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James




Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 21, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
I am receiving good messages from others. However, before writing responses, there is some corrective action I need to take. The opening section of my essay includes the derivation of an equation intended to represent how the speed of light varies with height above the Earth.

For those who wouldn't mind just skipping passed it, it plays no role in the work that follows. It is not needed. Its purpose was to provide an aid for general readers to visualize how and why the speed of light varies above the Earth. It is an equation of first approximation good only for a limited distance. Its derivation is shown in abreviated form and does not make clear that the equation applies only from the surface of the Earth and upward a significant but limited distance.

The derivation includes a sign error in both equations (4) and (5). This was not a typo. I remember adding that negative sign when writing the first section. It is not included in the original work that is posted at my website. It was a sloppy on-the-spot error. The negative sign should be removed from both equations. This problem was pointed out to me by Ann Smith and I thank her for it. I want to re-emphasize that that equation had a very limited intended purpose that does not affect the work presented afterwards.

I will be writing a second message to follow this one giving some overall explanation about what a reader can expect to see both in my essay and the supporting papers that I referenced. I have decided that this would be a good move based upon a few of the messages I have received. Those messages deserve answers, but, since they come from viewpoints formed in accepted physics theory, I feel my responses should be preceded by an introduction to the viewpoint that governs my work.

James



Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 18:34 GMT
I am reposting this message because, even though I was logged in, supposedly, its first submission carries the name anonymous and appeared separated from my post above. This is where I intended for this message to show:

My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The...

view entire post




Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 13:01 GMT
I am copying this message here because it adds to the explanation I have given about my work, part of which is introduced in my essay"

"Hi Wilhelmus,

The work that my statement comes from does not have an electric charge. The magnitude of the universal contant we call electric charge became a measure of a universal period of time. It is connected directly to photons. It is the time period required for any photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is the only universal constant that my work includes. The mass of particles of matter is identified as the acceleration of light caused by each type of particle. It is only the acceleration value that occurs within one photon length of the particle.

That photon length is the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. If light travels between the proton and the electron for the length of that radius, it will finish its trip in the universal increment of time mentioned above. Whether or not the photon actually has length is something that will wait until it is clear theoretically that it should not have length. In the meantime, assigning length to the photon accounts for a great many effects.

With regard to the photon having or not having mass, in my work there is a quantity of mass that becomes included in the photon energy equation. That value of mass is the value of the mass of the particle which gave the energy to the photon. The photon does not cause itself to accelerate as having mass might possibly indicate. So, I am not saying that a photon has mass, but, I am saying that its history of interaction with matter is recorded on it.

With regard to wavelength, as my message posted previous to this one explains, there has been no need for introducing a wave nature yet. A large body of work has been completed without it. Perhaps quantum effects will require its introduction, but, I have solved some fundamental quantum problems without it. I have nothing against the concept of wave nature. Rather, I am not accepting any theoretical ideas into my work that are not clearly and inescapably required. My work will show clear and ever-present unity for as long as it remains possible. Thank you for your message.

James



Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 23, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Here is a link to more results, from this variable speed of light approach, pertaining to several thermodynamic properties: The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy. Clausius' discovery is explained beyond its mathematical expression. Its physical meaning is made clear. These results, along with the others mentioned thus far, demonstrate the power of continuity of fundamental theoretical unity. One 'given' and that is all that is needed.

James




Anonymous wrote on Jun. 22, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
My essay 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' is representative of a body of work that redevelops physics theory differently from its historical development. The fundamentals of theory are redefined and higher level theory is built upon that new foundation. The guiding principle is that: Unity has always existed right from the beginning of the universe, and, that that unity should be clearly...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Doug wrote on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT
PENTAGON STUFF:

As regards where CIG Theory states the conversion of mass to Space:

Equating energy to mass to space:

0.02762u = 25.7MeV = 14,952,942.08 pm cubed of space

(Mass) (Energy) (Space)

Can someone (Nuclear engineer?) take an arbitrary amount of mass of Plutonium, and convert it to the Spatial quantity per the above CIG Quantification, as though in a Nuclear Explosion (I hate nuclear explosions!).

Then, with the theoretical newly created Space (CIG), can you model the subsequent force of the wind velocities. Compare this theoretical wind velocity modeling data with that data on record (hidden in some Pentagon archives?), as regards nuclear explosions.

You will have to figure out the CIG volumes of newly created Space per the above quantification and what would be its inherent contribution to those wind forces. Computer modeling?

Please compare the wind data on record with the theoretical data offered by the equivalent CIG conversion and its affects. (i.e. Are the houses and trees and fine people blown down with the same intensity?).

The two should be near identical.

Lots of math here - way way over my head.

The confirmation of CIG Theory may be at stake!

Thanks

doug

report post as inappropriate


Frank Makinson wrote on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
Your essay challenges the assumption that the void of space, free space and that of a vacuum measured on the surface of the earth represent absolutely the same condition. The refractive index of 1 is assigned to light propagating in a vacuum on the earth surface. Your essay suggests that the refractive index far removed from the solar system can be less than 1.

I agree with your premise that the speed of light varies as it approaches matter, as the presence of matter changes the permittivity of the medium in which an electromagnetic (EM) wave is permitted to propagate. The question arises, "Where does matter, or more correctly, the influence of matter start and stop relative to an EM wave, or photon?" If it is the square of the distance from an aggregation of matter, a lot of odd spacecraft related phenomena can be readily explained.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Frank Makinson,

Excellent message! On subject messages are rare.

"Your essay challenges the assumption that the void of space, free space and that of a vacuum measured on the surface of the earth represent absolutely the same condition. The refractive index of 1 is assigned to light propagating in a vacuum on the earth surface. Your essay suggests that the refractive index far removed from the solar system can be less than 1."

This is correct. The removal of the closest matter will cause a change, but, it is insignificant because of the tremendous amount of matter the remains near it. The speed of light will still be increasing with distance from the Earth even through the vacuum. The changes in the speed of light are of the magnitude of changes currently ascribed to the gravitational field. That is not much compared to the speed of light. The refractive index far removed from the solar system will be less than 1.

"I agree with your premise that the speed of light varies as it approaches matter, as the presence of matter changes the permittivity of the medium in which an electromagnetic (EM) wave is permitted to propagate. The question arises, "Where does matter, or more correctly, the influence of matter start and stop relative to an EM wave, or photon?" If it is the square of the distance from an aggregation of matter, a lot of odd spacecraft related phenomena can be readily explained."

The speed of light decreases inversly to the first power of distance from matter. However, the effects decrease inversly to the second power of distance from matter. The effects are due to the rate of change of the speed of light. The effects have no end in the same sense that gravity has no end to its reach. The variation of the speed of light replaces gravity.

James



Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
James,

I don't understand the last statement in your post, which is stated slightly differently in the last sentence of your essay. Are you suggesting that gravity is an electromagnetic (EM) force, and the field characteristics of light waves are the mechanism that represents the force of gravity?

The field orientations of light waves are transverse to the direction of propagation, and an attractive or repulsive force cannot be achieved in the direction of propagation. Precisely parallel and properly aligned transverse EM fields can attract or repel each other.

Light attracts repels

That experiment affirms that propagated EM fields act just like those in static laboratory tests, they attract or repel if properly aligned.

There is a very simple EM field configuration that can achieve an attractive only force in the axis of propagation, but I do not see anything in your essay that describes it. Additionally, the mechanism will have to accommodate the Newtonian "instantaneous action at a distance" which is necessary to keep the planetary orbits from becoming ever increasing spirals.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 1, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Frank Makinson,

Great message. You are questioning me for very good reason. Wow! Thank you. I need to think my response through carefully.

James




Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
James

In my theory http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272 Light speed variable when passing through the gravitational field depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Schwarzschild geometry illustrating that. Same as when the light beam passing through a tube of length L full of water, the light speed will be decreased for the lab observer. That is because according to my theory vacuum energy of tube full of water will be greater than the vacuum of our laboratory. In my theory what is determining the speed of light is the space-time that is drawn by the field or the vacuum energy. In the case the light beam passing through the water, it is passing through a uniform field for the lab. observer. But in the case of the gravitational field, it not uniform, it is depending on the radius r from the center of mass. Relative to a train moving with constant speed, in this case when the light beam passing through moving train, in this case for the stationary earth observe, the light speed is passing through higher vacuum energy than the earth and thus the speed of light will decreased inside the train and measured to be c'=(c^2-v^2)^0.5 for the earth observer depending on L/t, where L is the length of the train, and t is the time measured by the earth observer by his clock for the light to pass the length of the train. c' here doesn't depend on the direction of transmitting the light beam comparing to the direction of the velocity, and the length of the train during the motion for the earth observer is L same as if it is stationary. Now if the earth observer has an empty tube of length L and he cooled the tube to temperature -237C degree. In this case and according to my equivalence principle, the vacuum energy of the tube is less than the vacuum energy of the lab observer. That is equivalent to as the lab observer is moving with uniform speed v relative to the tube. Remember, in my theory, the light speed is locally constant and equals to c, the speed of light in vacuum. In my modified relativity theory we have got the lost key to unify between quantum and relativity, and by that I could interpret quantum tunneling and entanglement and what is the meaning of faster than light and my interpretation is agreed with the latest experimental results in quantum. Also my interpretation is applied on faster than light relative to the wormholes in general relativity, which is the same interpretation as in quantum.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jul. 4, 2012 @ 00:58 GMT
This post can be deleted

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 04:56 GMT
Hi Azzam,

I do recognize the differences between our views. Our having differences does not mean that you must be wrong. I don't judge other ideas against my own. I judge them against my knowledge of accepted physics theory. While my ideas are different from yours in several respects, it doesn't matter. I haven't proven anything to anyone. I put my case out for others to view, but, until a great many others accept it, it remains my view. It is the case that I like my ideas.

With regard to your theory. While there are several differences, the one that leaves me unconvinced is your idea that special relativity effects are joined with quantum effects partly through length contraction. Your treatment of length contraction involves instantaneous travel across a significant distance. I understand that you feel that the acceptance of this occurance meets the requirements of both special relativity and of quantum tunneling and perhaps entanglement, maybe other effects also.

The first question I would seek an answer to: How does the observer in the train and the train suddenly move instantly for the remainder of their trip? There has to be either a convincing explanation for instantaneous travel or empirical evidence that it occurs. The evidence that may suggest that instantaneous travel at the quantum isn't obviously transferable to the macroscopic level of special relativity and the train example.

You may respond here or, if you wish to respond at your blog, I will look for it there. Thank you for your message.

James



Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 18:04 GMT
James,

Understand. It is necessary to limit how many related issues that go in a paper to keep it in a readable size.

You might find Ed Unverricht's essay "Framework for a Classical Model of the Neutron, Proton, Electron and Photon" interesting in the way he presents the photon, page 8.

Framework for a Classical Model

report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT
James

in my theory as measuring light speed in a higher vacuum energy to less than the speed of light in vacuum, that lead to refractive index greater than 1. but in the case of measuring the light speed in a less vacuum energy to be greater than light speed in vacuum, the lead to refractive index to be less than 1. I agree with that principle, But in my theory in the case of measuring the refractive index less than one. there is no violation for the Lorentz transformation or causality.

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 23:19 GMT
A question on an employment form my daughter was filling out: All moops are tazzies. All tazzies are fazzies. Therefore, all moops are definitely fazzies. True or false?

James



T H Ray replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
True. Moops are subsets of tazzies and tazzies are subsets of fazzies. Were you actually looking for an answer, or did I let my naivete suck me into something, again? :-)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 20:35 GMT
Tom,

I was looking for an answer. My daughter marked the answer as true, but, then came and asked me what I thought. After a moment I said that word 'definite' makes me hesitate, I think it may be false. She went off. I was still thinking it over and went to her to say that the examples I had thought of all satisfied the true answer. I was still searching for an exception. Meanwhile, she had changed the answer to false and submitted the application on the computer. Then she was concerned that she had it correct and I made her change it. I had to scramble to come up with some exceptional example. Here it is, does it work?:

moops are letters of the alphabet that are also words.

tazzies are letters of the alphabet.

fazzies are all things with 26 parts.

I told her that when the employer said she got the question wrong to give her or him that example as a response. What does anyone think?

p.s. Tom, When she mentioned this problem to me it reminded me a a recent discussion, that should not be revived here, about a=b, b=c, therefore a=c. Ring a bell? That thought prompted me to think that it may be false.

James



T H Ray replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 23:08 GMT
James, your example makes the statement true. All words are made of letters of the alphabet, which has 26 elements. In that infamous example, even though it's always true that if A = B and B = C, then A = C, which is saying A = B = C, the application of the reasoning in that case was false. The actual algebra would be that when A = B, B = C. That's not the same statement, because the value of C is not dependent on the value of A, that is -- not linearly dependent, which is a requirement of the first case.

The difference between "when" and "if" obviates simultaneity. An example would be, using your illustration, that if moops are random letters of the alphabet that do not form words, they are tazzies only when they do form words. Then even though a moop is always a member of the set called tazzy, and both are members of fazzy, a moop takes dichotomous values dependent on whether it forms a word or not when we shake all the letters and output a string. The ouput, IOW, is a discrete nonlinear result, from a range of continuous values.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 22:29 GMT
To all who choose to rate my work,

My opinions about and votes for the essays of others are unrelated to evaluations by the others of my own work. That is the way I always do it. Any opinions expressed are invited to be forthright. Those are the kind that count. Thank you all.

James




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 19:17 GMT
Hi James,

It's always good to see you participating in these contests. I hope that a number of other regulars are working on their entries for this year, as well as new participants.

You probably know this, but the Pound-Rebka experiment at Harvard accurately measured light falling from the top of a tower to the bottom. Sometimes its hard to find data to test our theories against, but I think that this might be a good place for you to look, if you haven't already. Of course their goal was detecting the effect of gravity on the photon and they assumed the constant speed of light, but data is data, and I expect that the numbers they produced will fit into your own equations and can be interpreted in terms of your own assumptions.

Aside from that fact, congratulations on the number of comments you have received on your essay. Are you trying to set the record this year?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I included the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment right from the start. I address it at my website. It showed only that frequency changes. It could not show whether or not light was constant or if it varied and if it varies which direction it varied in. The experiment, if done before general relativity, could have been used as evidence that light speed varies. I think that even today it could be interpreted as either proving or disproving general relativity. That's enough of what I think. You wrote a very diplomatic message, thank you. :)

James



Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 21:18 GMT
James,

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that, if f waves pass the emitter (on the top of a tower of height h) in a unit of time, f'=f(1+gh/c^2) waves pass the receiver on the ground in a unit of time. If the wavelength, L, has remained constant, we have c'=Lf'>c=Lf, that is, the speed of light has increased. A different conclusion can only be reached on the assumption that the wavelength varies in some way or another.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
Pentcho,

The Pound-Rebka experiment said nothing about waves or frequency. It had to do with measuring photon energy and its change due to distance above the Earth. And then also motion of a material object. Your analysis or anyone's analysis is attached to discussions of but is not part of the experiment.

James




Author James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 00:03 GMT
Hi Steve,

In response to your message concerning my understanding your theory. I do not understand your theory. If anything I say sounds to you to be related to it, it is just coincidental or more likely is your imagination. I don't use spheres for building up the universe or for containing the universe. I work solely from the perspective that empirical evidence consists of information about patterns of changes of velocity. I accept only what properties are inferred from that evidence.

The two properties inferred from that evidence are force and resistance to force. The evidence does not tell me what force is or what resistance to force is. But, those two are real and for those two one can treat them in a theoretical manner such as saying that electric charge gives rise to force or saying that resistance to force is something called mass. I don't use electric charge in my work because I found it to be unnecessary. Its magnitude without its electric charge interpretation is a universal constant that works wonders to achieve unity.

Even in the treatment of force and resistance to force, I am restricted to working with one cause for both. I am also restricted to defining both of them in the same terms as is the evidence from which their existence is inferred. No additional assumptions are allowed to enter into their definitions.

That act is for the purpose of keeping the inventions of theorists at bay. Adding extra forces or separate causes for mass are theoretical additions that I avoid to this day or until forced to acknowledge their need. None of this has to do with spheres or the properties of spinning spheres or your equations.

I do not know what your theory is about. My chosen path is very different. Take credit for what you have done. Nothing that I have done is credited to learning your theory. I haven't learned your theory. I don't understand your theory. I am not using your theory.

James



Anonymous replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 10:54 GMT
Hi James,

Indeed you do not understand it, you know don't be too much frustrated, it is logic, you know only perhaps 50 persons on this earth are able to understand the gnerality of my theory. I don't offense you, I just put your sciences at their rational step. You are a thinker, a kind of philosophe.In fact like the most of persons making the essays here, you need a kind of recognizing, probably that you think that you are special.You know me also I need a recognizing from the sciences community. But no James, you are not special,we are not special, indeed we are all unique and preious, and with a real humility when you listen the wind , isn't it ?

In fact James, you are too much vanitious and too much jealous perhaps even and too much limited for a real understanding of my gneral works.I am obliged to speak like this.Sorry but I must show you your foundamental errors.

An ocean of essays for a kind of vanity.....and who is the winner ? who ?

Each year you make an essay, and now it is the decreasing of light , in fact you make like a lot of people a kind of false general copycats for this recognizing cited above.

Don't be too much frurstated, each person at his place , no?

How can you understand a thing if you have not studied the gnerality.You know a theory or rational idea do not fall down from the sky like that. In fact a real searcher learns real sciences and accept the general ideas.if not it is just a probelm of vanity.And frankly the essays shall be better if the vanity was in the pocket.

I find your ideas , interesting in a pure philosophical point of vue. That is all. You do not really learn the generalities.I invite you to study the maths, the biology, the ecology, the astronomy and the pure thermodynamics, Zemanski have made good works.And put your vanity in the spherical pocket ok James !

Your ideas are not bad ,but it lacks the generalities of our universal laws.

Buy better books please !

After perhaps you shall see the real universal proportions due to rotating spheres.Quantum spheres.....cosmological spheres.....UNIVERSAL SPHERE. IN 3D !!!

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
Pentcho,

If you wish to converse further about the Pound-Rebka experiment please consider posting here. thank you.

James



Pentcho Valev replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 13:57 GMT
James Putnam wrote: "The Pound-Rebka experiment said nothing about waves or frequency."

Quite to the contrary, James:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Me
hanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin (p. 4): "They [Pound and Rebka] sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

The receiver at the top measures frequency f', speed of light c' and wavelength L': f'=c'/L'. If the wavelength has remained constant (L'=L), the speed of light has decreased as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: c'=c(1-gh/c^2).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Pentcho,

You are informing me of a theoretical view of what the experiment meant. I spoke to what the experiment demonstrates on its own. It only demonstrated that a photon would not be absorbed under very exacting circumstances if that photon changed its distance from the Earth. And also, that adding motion will compensate for it. It does not demonstrate what happens or doesn't happen to the speed of light.

Frequency, wavelength, and thereby the common reference to red-shift is interpretation by us. If you wish to attach that interpretation to the results of the experiment, it has proven to be theoretically useful. If you wish to attach your own interpretation, then you are on your own. I attach my own personal interpretation and I am on my own. The experiment stands for what it did period.




Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 04:18 GMT
James

Just to let you know an historical information. In his articles of 1911 and 1915-16 Einstein already knew that the speed of light was not constant. He was aware that the second postulate of special relativity must be abandoned for non-inertial frames of reference (i.e. for gravitational fields). Einstein knew that the only way that light could bend near a massive object is by changing the speed of the wave fronts (assuming spherical waves). Thus the speed of light has been known NOT to be constant for about 100 years. However, for practical purposes old theorists keep it or assume it to be a universal constant, this is what most people believe today.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
Israel

Brilliant. Somebody else who knows the facts. Indeed, in 1905, he already knew that because he wrote when describing the two posulates: "only apparently irreconcilable", because in 1905 light is in vacuo, matter is not, so the two cannot co-exist. In SR both are in vacuo, in GR nothing is. Israel, please do not respond here, if you want to discuss further, come across to my essay, which is not about that, but there is a post on there which explains that (13/7 11.24)

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Israel,

Please give the quotes along with your interpretations of them pointing out specific words and their usage. Just want to respond knowing that we are communicating accurately. Thank you.

James



Israel Perez replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 03:59 GMT
Hi James

As I mentioned before you can find the whole information in his articles of 1911 and 1916. There are many myths and misunderstandings among the physics community in relation to both the second postulate of special relativity and Einstein’s contribution to physics. This is because many historical facts are not included in textbooks. Textbooks usually show the condensed version of each theory. For instance, no book talks about the development of relativistic dynamics, in particular, the mass-energy relation. All contemporary textbooks attribute the whole of special relativity to Einstein which is not true at all. A similar situation occurs with electrodynamics which is basically attributed to Maxwell and Lorentz (implicit are Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Gauss, etc. the pioneers of statics and dynamics). But unfortunately the history of physics has forgotten the tremendous contribution to electrodynamics of many authors such as Hertz, Fitzgerald, Larmor, Heaviside, Lodge, etc. All these researchers gave the shape to the classical electrodynamics of today.

In his article of 1911 he stated the principle of equivalence (despite the fact that he never understood the why of such equivalence). There he arrived at an equation similar to yours (8) and he explicitly promulgate that the bending of light near a massive object is due to the fact that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field. I could notice that in essence your line of thought is the same as his. Then, in his famous article of 1916 (The foundations of the generalized theory of relativity) he mentioned the following at the end of the second part: "… Also we see immediately that the principle of the constancy of light-velocity MUST BE MODIFIED, for we recognize easily that the path of a ray of light with reference to K' must be, in general, curved, when light travels with a definite and constant velocity in a straight line with reference to K."

Please take a look at my essay (THE PREFERRED SYSTEM OF REFERENCE RELOADED) where I discuss more about this issue. The corresponding references are provided as well.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
James,

If your theory is right, does it not affect distance and time measurements of distances to other galaxies and the age of the universe, etc.?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:42 GMT
Hi James,

Your observation is correct from my point of view. The only point that I will make at this time is that my approach does indicate that the age of the universe is much older than current projections. I will respond more fully at a later time. Thank you for your message.

James




Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 20:00 GMT
James,

I agree with your contention that the speed of light will vary as it approaches a mass, the larger the mass the larger the variation. I just posted a response on Peter Jackson's topic (1330) which reiterates why I support your speed of light variability. I provided information that I had not previously put in your forum topic. see my 1330 post (Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT)

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:33 GMT
Hi Frank,

Thank you for your message. My current Internet connection is minimal and unreliable. I will read your messages. My responses will be intermittent. Perhaps days apart for the next two weeks. I have solutions that pertain to putting mass as the acceleration of light that have not yet been presented here. One has to do with predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom using only the masses of the proton and electron. When I have a reliable connection I will say more about this. Thank you again.

James



Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
Frank Makinson,

I am preparing better responses to your messages. Truth is that enough down time for me has passed that I need to re-read your essay.

James



Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Frank,

I looked at my work for predicting the radius of the hydrogen atom, using the inverse of the masses of the electron and proton, and decided it was too much math to re-create here. It is presented at this link from my website on pages 116-120.

James




Pentcho Valev wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT
The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter): f=c/L. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L': f'=c'/L'.

James, could you please answer the following questions: c'=? L'=?

My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate


Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
Thanks James for reference to newphysicstheory.com in your Bio.

It is an excellent piece of work and fairly extensive.

As a PicoPhysicist, I say your proposition 'presence of matter causes light to slow as it approaches the matter' is a derivative conclusion from unary law in PicoPhysics. I have begun to expose concepts of PicoPhysics through an essay on Five Dimensions of universe .

Look forward to your comments and evaluation of the Five Dimensions of universe .

Thanks and Regards,

Vijay Gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Hi Vijay,

Thank you for your kind message. I followed your link "As a PicoPhysicist, I say your proposition 'presence of matter causes light to slow as it approaches the matter' is a derivative conclusion from 'unary law' in PicoPhysics." I am not certain from reading it how it applies to what I say about the variation of the speed of light. I have read your essay today and will comment on it at your forum. It is interesting to learn what others think and it was interesting to read your view. I look forward to reading exchanges between yourself and others at your forum.

James




Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
Dear James,

Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed your trip.

I just wanted to post here a copy of Dr. Perez's comment to you:

Author Israel Omar Perez replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 18:31 GMT

Dr James

Thanks for your post. I invite you to read, some of my posts here in reply to Pentcho's inquiries, there you will find some other arguments in favor of the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field which is equivalent to having a fluid with a inhomogeneous refractive index.

Israel

That should make you feel good!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 23:28 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your message. Most of my time was spent helping my brother renovate an old farmhouse into something much more like a country cottage. He will be soon retiring there. It is a yearly event. The location is forty miles from the nearest small town. I receive roaming service in the small town, but receive nobody's service at the farm.

I see that Dr. Perez preceded my name with Dr. I am sure it must have been inadvertent. Although I deliberately avoid giving out information about my education and work experience, I do regularly state that I am not a physicist. I do not want readers to perhaps be misled by its omission.

James



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
James,

I'm surprised at you. I know you are not silly enough to actually 'feel good' over someone addressing you as 'Dr.' What I was referring to is that a very competent individual is arguing in support of the basic premise in your essay, about the variability of time!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 23:54 GMT
Correction: The variability of the speed of light.

report post as inappropriate


Azzam AlMosallami wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 00:52 GMT
Dear James,

Please will you read my paper in http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0018

It important for your topic regarded to the variability of the speed of light. it gives new interpretation for the Lorentz transformation equations depending the variability of the speed of light by considering the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index. This concept is applying on GR, and then answering the question if light is bending by gravity or refracted. thus, solving the contradiction between quantum gravity and GR.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 00:36 GMT
James,

Just a brief comment to be sure you're aware that another essay seems to be in basic agreemnt with you: Declan Traill's essay #1363. He too assumes that the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field, and Perez has told him to check out your work. I'm excited for you!

I may also be excited for myself, as I'm starting to see this as the link I have potentially needed between the Master equation of my earlier essays (leading to my current essay) and the curvature of general relativity. I must admit that I did not see the full potential until Israel Perez pointed out in his essay that the effects on light of variable density gravitational field are equivalent to the effects of the curvature of space-time of general relativity. That caught my attention. And now Declan has worked out other details that are, at least initially, impressive. I have not had time to digest his yet, or to compare them with yours, or to fit them into Israel Perez's theory or link to Daryl Janzen's theory or even Cristi Stoica's latest essay, but I will tell you that the implications of all of these are exciting, and I hope they pan out. I've been aware of the conversations about relativity, but I've been focused on quantum for a year or so, yet it's really good to see these essays on relativity.

This is turning into quite an essay contest. The theme is a good one and many essays are simply great.

Congratulations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 01:46 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for advice and guidance. I am well behind in reading essays. However, I too did at least begin to see divergent presentations among professionals. Firstly, it is very good to see the increase in professional submissions. This contest is a contest because of professional participation. Anything that professionals say is of interest to me even when it is in opposition to what I think. I do not judge essays by level of agreement with what I think. I judge them, to the best of my ability, by their competence. The essays and other's opinions, in general, can be in opposition to what I think and still win a level 10 rating.

With regard to anything an expert says that appears to fit or relate to what I think, it is of great personal interest. Israel's essay spoke about space as a medium different from how I would explain it, but, he wrote about the variation of mu and epsilon with distance from matter. That is major and sufficient in itself.

I have found no problem with replicating the equations, in adjusted forms, of relativity theory for the purpose of modeling relativity type effects. I say type effects because I want to make clear that those effects, while real empirical effects, are not properly described theoretically by relativity theory. Speaking my opinion, the introduction of relativity theory has been a major impediment to furthering our understanding of the nature of the universe.

The steps I mentioned recently, regarding mass and electric charge, in an earlier message make clear the way for removal of all theoretical inventions including relativity theory. As always I do not assume that you agree with what I am saying. Readers should understand that my statements are my opinion and I am not a physicist.

Thank you for the heads up alerts. I need them. Since my main interest has always been about fixing theoretical physics, my view does not have to be the correct understanding of the nature of the universe for me to appreciate seeing progress toward that end. Your own work is a major, and far more sophisticated professional, effort to advance theoretical physics from its low mechanical status to a level where the most important properties of the universe become included in the 'foundational science'. If your work proves to be the new physics that suits me fine.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 04:32 GMT
James

Some notes about variations of fundamental constants:

In discussion between L. B. Okun, G. Veneziano and M. J. Duff, concerning the number of fundamental dimensionful constants in physics (physics/0110060). They advocated correspondingly 3, 2 and 0 fundamental constants. Why they not considering case,where only 1 constant Planck-Dirac's constant; h/2pi=1,054x10^-27ergxsec?

This will be convincingly, because c not contain mass dimension for triumvir(l,t,m) and G not contain t for triumvir

My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.

As a consequence only Mp/Me=1836 true dimensionless constant?

Very beautiful symmetric number because 1+8=3+6=9

In binary code 1001

"For practical use Planck length, time and energy are obviously irrelevant."

I am sure Planck mass(energy) eternal relevant.

I am not sure about Planck length and Planck time.

I will try why:

My be h only dimensionful constant of Nature? Some hint give Planck mass Mp=(hc/G)^1/2 .We simultaneously can decrease or increase c and G, but Mp remains unchanged.I think that the speed of light and speed of gravity the same independently the are luminal or superluminal.

In the formula Planck length G/c^3 no linear link.

In the formula Planck time G/c^5 no linear link.

All the best

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 15:06 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Thank you for your message and thank you for communicating with me in English. I do not know other languages. I admire those who are multilingual. I need to read your message carefully and will do so before responding.

James




Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 03:53 GMT
Tom,

Moving this discussion into my own blog unless Vessilyn chooses to re-open it:

""I understand those things. They do not address the question of why does the freely falling person not feel the force of gravity.""

"Yes they do. No particle or system of particles is in a privileged inertial frame. Think about it."

I have thought about it. Newton's law of gravity should have caused anyone to expect that there would be no feeling of the force of gravity for a freely falling person. That person accelerates downward because gravity is pulling them downward. They do not feel that force because that force is evenly applied to all parts. What is it in the example, discounting all of the relativity theory add-on to this simple example, that would be expected to cause the falling person to feel the force?

""It is not because gravity is no force. The persons feeling is not evidence for that conclusion. I gave the reason why there is no feeling.""

"A person is a system of particles. The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence."

The external evidence is not contradictory of the internal evidence. The internal evidence tells us that the person has no reason to feel the effect of the force of gravity so long as they are falling freely and not partially resisting it in any significant manner. The particles resist falling at infinite speed. However, they do this all in unison. There is no change physically for the freely falling person. They have no reason to feel differently.

James



Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 12:35 GMT
The question of why a freely falling person would not feel the effect of the force of gravity upon them has nothing to do with believing or denying anyone's theory. The introduction of length contraction or time dilation or space-time or priviledged or unpriviledged frames into the discussion is unnecessary theoretical discourse. The fact is that there is no reason for a freely falling person to feel the effect of the force of gravity. There is no physical effect upon their person. No one's theory is necessary to explain that which is obvious. The freely falling person is not being cruntched up. Any disdain for lack of appreciation for relativity theory has nothing to do wih the problem. No one's theory is needed to explain that which has no existence.

James




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear James:

You commented on my essay:

"...that is, if we are willing to trade our preconceptions about what's logical for Nature's logic. "

Just getting started on your essay. Find it very remarkable that you are in possession of Nature's logic. Perhaps?! "

My reply is:

I certainly am not 'in possession of Nature’s logic'. My point is that we tend to cling...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Anton W.M. Biermans,

Hi Anton,

I neglected to follow through and comment on your essay. Sorry about that. I didn't recall my statement until you refreshed my memory here. I did read your essay. Viewing the universe from both an inside and outside perspective. This message you have written here is well stated. I really should look back at your essay again before commenting on it over at your blog. Thank you for your message.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
Hi,James

I think the best contemporary review is http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 18:28 GMT
And this one http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.5514v1.pdf

Varying constants, Gravitation and Cosmology

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 18:35 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Thank you for the links. Are you going to submit an essay?

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 18:44 GMT
Yes James, my be next week

report post as inappropriate


Gene Barbee wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:15 GMT
james, thanks for reading my essay. I read yours and was expecting a different conclusion. You said this eliminates gravity as a fundamental force and I was expecting this explains the source of gravity. Can you explain?

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT
Gene Barbee,

Thank you for your message and for this question:

"You said this eliminates gravity as a fundamental force and I was expecting this explains the source of gravity. Can you explain?"

I was asked to expain my point about two months ago and need to write that response. I have the essay and its math to refer to. I will first write the answer in message form and refer to the essay and its math. The reason for this is that all answers that I give result from the change I presented for mass in my essay. That is the key step in returning theoretical physics to its empirical roots and the unity which it recaptures.

The choice to make mass an indefinable, or as it is stated in some modern texts, a primary property, was the beginning of injecting disunity into physics equations. Making it into a definable property, which it should always have been, begins a process of development leading from a single cause to all effects and constants. Other properties that have been treated as causes go away and are no longer needed.

The force of gravity is due to that single original fundamental cause. My message will explain how I move from explaining mass to explaining gravity. I will try to have that message written in the next few days.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 01:29 GMT
James

I add new posts to my essay where you can read my vision about variation speed of light in history of Universe.

See please cosmological picture of the Universe.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 02:19 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Good. I will look at them soon. You are doing very nicely in the contest. Good luck to you.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 03:03 GMT
James

In my essay you can read that the cyclic universe gives the possibility of reconciliation between science and religion.

report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:29 GMT
James,

I want to draw your attention to very interesting view of John Moffat

"He proposes a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moffat_%28physicist%2
9

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:59 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Yes I know. I read it. I will think about his essay more before saying anything to him. I defined G in my essay, not as a universal constant, but as a simple empirically based relationship between the electron and proton of the hydrogen atom. I need to be sure that I fully understand John Moffat's approach. Thank you for the alert.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
I would like to make contact with Dr.Moffat, because I find a lot in common in our views .. He did not answer me.

Arrogantism widespread among professionals.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 16:31 GMT
Yuri,

I do not think that way about professionals. There is variety among them as there is among any group, but, PHD's have earned the credentials necessary to speak as authorities. Their responsibilities as extensive and time consuming. Even cordial replies sometimes must wait. They face a difficulty in responding to non-professionals.

If they respond at all the chances are the correspondence will become prolonged and usually for no good reason. The worst thing they can do is try to be diplomatic. Most non-professionals, who are always swarming to contact the professionals, take politeness as an invitation to teach the professional. Surely you know that almost all non-professional evaluations of theoretical physics are clearly wrong.

If the professionals are honest in their evaluations, they are often treated disrespectfully. When they can and do give of their time and their opinion it should be accepted gracefully. Wait and while waiting don't use words like 'arrogantism'. If you don't receive a response then try somewhere else. I say this as someone who is occasionally treated disrespectfully and censored by professionals.

Appreciate that you have the chance to rub elbows with professionals. If that is all you receive from some, it is more than you will receive elsewhere. It should be clear to you and to all that I have been around the Internet for many years and there is no place better to have a chance to say what one thinks scientifically than exists here.

This is the only place that I converse with professionals other than if they contact me first through email. I never contact them elsewhere. If they see something I say as deserving a compliment, there are some who would and have stepped forward and said so and I thank them for that.

James



Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
James,

Do you now Professor Stenger from Colorado?

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Ho
me.html

Fundamental constants - field his research

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 18:24 GMT
Yuri,

I don't know him. If I did know him as an acquaintance, I would be sure to not talk about physics with him. I have a close relationship with a physics professor and never would I drag him into a discussion about my ideas. The Internet is a fine medium for discourse. It isn't totally relationship free, but, one can usually speak honestly about what they think. Often the conversation remains focused. Relationships, to whatever extent they exist, are of lesser concern and perhaps don't have an affect. In real life I don't burden friends with my ideas about physics. The relationships mean more. As I said in my other message, I never contact professionals directly unless it is to answer their emails. They get plagued enough!

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT
I once found from the russian article reference to his aticle. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/MonkeyGod.
pdf

It seems to me interesting. I am not familiar with him.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 19:00 GMT
Yuri,

I have read from his writings. He is not here so I don't have an opinion to give. If a professional introduced someone else's, perhaps Stenger's, writings into a conversation, then I would probably address those writings. Perhaps you have noticed that I speak in my own words about my own ideas and do not reference other's works. I feel free to speak about the work of persons like Newton and Einstein. I think that Einstein messed up theoretical physics. He has a great many defenders,so, I don't think I am being unfair because of his absence. I think I have only spoken critically about other professional's ideas when they expressed their ideas here as part of FQXi. I know then that they could respond if they feel it is necessary.

I recognize that your message was not asking for all of this, but, in light of your use of the word 'arrogantism' I thought I should make my own opinions clear about professionals and the works of professionals.

James




Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
Should be free competition of ideas.Needed immediately clash and fight.Life is boring without it.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 00:26 GMT
James, gravity is definitely a force. What makes it a force is F=ma (fundamentally) in conjunction with the fundamental equivalence between inertia and gravity (i.e., inertial and gravitational "mass") and balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Why do you think our visible bodies do not sink into the visible earth (contract or expand)? (Notice also that the invisible body/eye [experience] enjoins invisible space as well when looking down at the ground.

My essay, soon to be posted, proves all of this. Einstein's GR is far more lacking and ungrounded than is presumed. I proved this too.

Gravity is fundamental to stabilized distance in/of space. A fact.

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT
Frank,

I am glad to see you have enterred an essay. Perhaps it will posted. I don't agree with your ideas. But you have the opportunity to say your piece in your own words. Best wishes.

James




Author James A Putnam wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT
I recognize that one of my messages posted here a few days ago referred to the wrong person. I deleted it and apologize to that person. I will not name the person that I incorrectly identified. The message is gone.

James




Consantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
Hello James,

Couldn't let this pass without knocking at your post leaving a comment. I remember you fondly two years ago when I first started blogging in this forum and you were so kind to respond with encouraging words.



As to your current essay. There would be no question about the variability of the speed of light if light were to be recognized propagating as a wave. And surely, the medium of propagation would determine its speed. Sometimes slower and sometimes faster. To just this point I like to add an important result found at End Note III) of my essay,“The Metaphysics of Physics”. There, I mathematically show that light propagates as a wave!



Good luck in this contest!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
Consantinos Ragazas,

Hi, I glad to see you are doing quite well in the ratings. I remember that your work included some correct answers that we both agree on. With regard to a wave nature, which is what I assume you are referring to by 'propogating as a wave'. My first essay here for the Nature of Time contest included, among other very important results, the derivation of Maxwell's equations without including electric charge, and no elecric or magnetic fields. In other words, nothing to make a wave out of. Each of my essays presents original work that does not include a wave nature. I will stick with my photon model. Along with extensive important results, it includes unity for all properties right from the beginning of the derivation of theory. Good luck to you in the contest.

James



Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 03:28 GMT
James you write,

“... [my] derivation of Maxwell's equations without including electric charge, and no elecric or magnetic fields. In other words, nothing to make a wave out of”

Likewise! My derivation showing light propagates as a wave (ie. the wave equation is satisfied) also includes “nothing to make a wave out of”. This is a natural conclusion, having shown light is a wave! And the 'ether' of light propagation? This turns out to be the 'quantity eta' in my papers! Which is the 'time-integral of energy'. Planck's constant h is an example of such a quantity!

I am glad you remember something of our past exchanges! These were over 'thermodynamics entropy' and the proportionality I had derived between entropy and physical time. Namely, ΔS = kνΔt , where k is Boltzmann's constant and ν is frequency (or 'rate of evolution/devolution' is more closer to the 'truth' – both positive OR negative real number). This determines 'physical time' to be 'duration', Δt, and not 'instantiation', t. And leads to a more sensible rewording of the Second Law to say “every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur”. Thus putting into question the Spacetime continuum modeling Nature with 'eventpoints' at each 'instant' t. And helps 'locate' all the 'missing mass-energy' of the Universe that goes by the alias 'dark'.



Constantinos

P.S. Read Eric Reiter's excellent essay, ”A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory”, describing experimental findings in agreement with my mathematical conclusions that “energy propagates continuously as a wave while it interacts discretely” and “before manifestation there is accumulation of energy”. What he calls 'loading'.

report post as inappropriate

Curt Youngs replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 05:27 GMT
James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 22:37 GMT

Dear Robt Curtis Youngs,

I would like to see relativists debate some of the content of your essay. I have not found any use for Einstein's, or his supporter's, visual aids. They are not needed to explain or account for relativity type effects nor for deriving the correct equations necessary for properly modeling those effects. Now, that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 12:58 GMT
Dear Curt Youngs,

Thank you for your message. I thought hands belonged in pockets. I would try to argue that it is natural except that I remember that during world war II the French had to keep reminding American's in occupied France to not put their hands in their pockets. French men did not do that. You have a visitor's challenging message posted for you in your forum.

James

report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 20:29 GMT
Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano,

Quoting you: "The empirical principle. A principle is empirical if it has no logical motivation other than its empirical evidence." This principle is one that I consider to be crucial to theoretical physics. I think the application of this principle must be more forcefully emphasized. You may not view it in the same manner in which I present it below.

I am...

view entire post





Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Tom,

"Time is not a physically real object. Spacetime is.

If you think Einstein was wrong, you have an immensely hard row to hoe, in face of the evidence."

No I don't. I have already produced the replacement equations. E=mc^2 has been replaced. I presented this work in my Essay titled 'Our Analog Universe'. Spacetime is gone. Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone. There is a universal fundamentally constant measure of time. It was presented in my first essay 'The Absoluteness of Time'. In it I also put forward many examples of correcting physics equations including Maxwell's. All of this and much more is available at my website. There is an essay on 'The Nature of Thermodynamic Entropy' that shows many of the new results that are achieved by removing theory from the equations of physics. Clausius discovery is explained. It has never been explained before. Etc.

James Putnam



T H Ray replied on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 18:38 GMT
"Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone."

You have suggested an experiment to show physical spatial contraction in zero time? James, please.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
Tom,

""Length contraction remains. Time dilation is gone.""

"You have suggested an experiment to show physical spatial contraction in zero time? James, please."

No I haven't. I guess we are not communicating well. Time passes at a fundamentally constant universal rate. That rate does not have its own rate of change. Its cange is a constant everywhere in the universe. There is no spacial contraction. Your choice of words might include consideration of space contraction. There is length contraction. Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space.

The absolute universal period of time is the time it takes for a photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is photons that suffer length contraction. It is that change in photon length that results in length contraction of objects. Photons suffer length contraction for two reasons. One is due to their slowing speed as they approach mass. The other is due to the object which contains them having a velocity with respect to the gravitational field through which it is passing. There is no circumstance that involves length contraction of objects in zero time.

James Putnam



Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT
"Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space."

Matter doesn't occupy space? The flaw here, James, is the failure to realize that any real measurement of change in relative position between points is always taken between points of mass, never between points of space.

What you're suggesting, is that one may observe a meter stick to contract in its direction of motion by, say, 1/2 in an absolute space; i.e., the mass endpoint of the stick has a constant relation to the spatial point once occupied by the stick's endpoint, which an outside observer at rest relative to the meter stick measured to be one meter in length. You would say that the stick in motion that measures only half a meter (which means it would be traveling at about 3/4 the speed of light) is the "real" physics.

Apparently without realizing it, you are assigning an absolute value to the observer at rest. The fact of the case is that there is no privileged observer frame -- to a hypothetical observer sitting on the stick, the stick still measures one meter in length; it is the other observer's frame that appears contracted. "All physics is local," as Einstein put it.

"The absolute universal period of time is the time it takes for a photon, anywhere in the universe, to pass a given point. It is photons that suffer length contraction."

There is no time interval from a photon's point of view; therefore, no point which a photon can "pass." The interval is infinitely extended (my essay explains this point at infinity).

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
Tom,

""Length contraction is observed to occur to objects. It is not observed to occur to space.""

"Matter doesn't occupy space? The flaw here, James, is the failure to realize that any real measurement of change in relative position between points is always taken between points of mass, never between points of space.

What you're suggesting, is that one may observe a meter...

view entire post




Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
"My firs essay 'The Absoluteness of Time' gives the standard universally fundamental increment of time by which the clock of the universe is held invariant."

I realize that, James. However " ... the increment of time, as measured by a photon ..." is not possible -- a photon is always emitted at the speed of light. Therefore, the only point to which a photon can be at rest (which is an absolute requirement for you to have a photon "pass a given point" as you claim), is a point at infinity.

Your absolute increment of time is infinity. Which is why all observations are unitary and all physics is local.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Vesselin Petkov wrote on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 20:46 GMT
Dear James,

Last summer I mentioned I would offer you a free ebook version of book on innerta and gravitation:

http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/iner
tia.html


as a thank you for your time and effort to comment on my essay. If you interested, please contact me at vpetkov@minkowskiinstitute.org

All the best fot the holidays,

Vesselin

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 18, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Vesselin Petkov,

12 years ago you had ideas fatal for Einsteiniana:

Vesselin Petkov: "It has been overlooked that the wavelength of a photon in the gravitational redshift experiment cannot change along with its frequency (...) As both frequency and velocity change in this experiment the measurement of a change in a photon frequency is in fact an indirect measurement of a change in the photon local velocity. (...) The very existence of the gravitational redshift, however, shows that it is the local velocity of a photon that changes along with the change of its frequency. (...) In such a way the gravitational redshift essentially shows that two photons emitted at points of different gravitational potential have different local velocities at the same observation point..."

Do you discuss, in your new book, the variation/constancy of frequency, wavelength and velocity of light in a gravitational field?

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Dec. 19, 2012 @ 14:15 GMT
Dear Vesselin,

Thank you for repeating your offer. I will take advantage of the opportunity to learn from your book 'Inertia and Gravitation'.

James Putnam



Vesselin Petkov replied on Dec. 19, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear James,

I apologize for repeating my offer. The reason is that in the summer I mentioned the book would be published by the end of September, but for a number of reasons it was completed and posted on MIP's site and Amazon hardly yesterday. Simply, I was concerned that you might think I forgot about my offer.

I am sorry for the typos in my previous post; I was in a hurry.

All the best,

Vesselin

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
Time dilation and length contraction, along with e=mc2, were introduced in 1905. Time dilation and length contraction are the mathematical expressions of the physical effects upon which the derivation of e=mc2 depends. E=mc2 is empirically confirmed to accurately calculate the conservation of mass/energy; therefore, the effects known as time dilation and length contraction cannot be illusions. In special relativity, both time dilation and length contraction result from relative constant velocities. Relative constant velocities do not involve the use of force. Relative velocities in gravitational fields produce special relativity effects. Even if one develops a theory based upon a variable speed of light, length contraction must be included in order to derive a viable alternative form of energy equation to replace e=mc2. My use of the equation e=mc2 represents the total energy term in Einstein's kinetic energy equation.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 23:24 GMT
Eckard,

"Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley."

The point that I make is not dependent upon guesses or theories or Michelson Moreley. It is dependent upon the success of e=mc2.

"The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?"

It is quite different because it includes relativistic mass and the non-variable velocity c2.

On 'The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' 1905, section 10 'Dynamics of The Slowly Accelerated Electron'

"In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications."

I was being cautious. E=mc2 is falsifiable. Time dilation is also falsifiable. There are three properties involved in making my point. Energy/mass, time dilation, and length contraction. I am saying that the three are inescapably interconnected. All three are theoretically required to be physical. Once mass/energy and time dilation were empirically verified, length contraction became required to be physical.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 08:04 GMT
James,

Thank you for pointing me to §10. While I found an equation for the kinetic energy of an electron: W = mc^2{1/sqrt(v^2/c^2) -1}, I cannot yet see its claimed success.

I agree on that length contraction and time dilation are interrelated. However I thought this was already introduced by Lorentz as an attempt to explain something that worried the experts while it actually was just caused by Michelson's mistake.

Limited speed of wave propagation and accordingly apparent increase of mass can also be attributed to other waves, in particular to acoustic ones. In this case, one can also ascribe the quanta of energy to fictitious phonons instead of photons.

Instead of reiterating objections against inconsistencies of SR, I would like to ask which justified corrections to classical physics were tacitly introduced together with it. Galileo and Newton still postulated that bodies are rigid. Shouldn't we consider this model just an approximation?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 17:27 GMT
Eckard,

Sec. 10

He deals with mass right before deriving the kinetic energy equation:

"We remark that these results as to the mass are also valid for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small.

We will now determine the kinetic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 7, 2013 @ 21:24 GMT
James,

Perhaps you will not deny that length contraction was fabricated by FitzGerald possibly in connection with Heaviside and later by Lorentz as to explain the erroneously unexpected null-result of the experiment by Michelson and Morley.

The expression mc^2 is not much different from the definitely much elder kinetic energy 0.5 mv^2. could you please point me to the original (1905?) derivation?

In general I would be cautious with guesses like "something is a physical effect" or "something must be correct because". I prefer falsifications.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Jan. 8, 2013 @ 06:00 GMT
The flaw in the theory of relativity is as follows:

There are two interrelated fundamental mistakes, Einstein:

-conflated physical existence and the physically existent representation of that (aka light), ie there is no observational light

-attributed distance with duration, ie distance was measured in terms of duration taken to travel it, and the entity used was light

So, the light which Einstein refers to is not observational light but a timing mechanism, which is a constant. The sum effect of these two mistakes is to shift the timing differential from one end of the physical process to the other. That is, there is always a timing delay between the occurrence of physical existence and the receipt of a photon based representation of that. But if these two separate physical circumstances are combined, then this timing differential appears to be a characteristic of physical existence, ie everything has ‘its own time’ (unless as Einstein incorrectly stated, it is in the “immediate proximity”).

The mistakes are easily identifiable in 1905 section 1 part 1. I wrote this argument out properly and posted it on my essay blog.

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT
Tom and Rob,

Tom,

Me: "The mechanical interpretation of photons along with the mechanical interpretation of the activity of the mind does not explain the existence of meaning."

You: "Why not?"

Because the letters C-A-T do not explain why there is meaning for the word CAT.

Rob,

You: "Regarding: [Me] "the mechanical interpretation of the activity of the...

view entire post




T H Ray replied on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 16:54 GMT
" ... the letters C-A-T do not explain why there is meaning for the word CAT."

Wouldn't you agree, however, that the meaning of a cat (the animal, not the word) precedes construction of the symbol C-A-T?

Therefore: aren't the symbols that construct meaning consubstantial with the perceived meaning?

We could not otherwise agree that C-A-T means anything at all.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
James,

The idea you are talking about, is far older than St. Augustus. It is basically Plato's theory of recollection.

"through belief, we can assume that it must be there"

Through belief, one can assume anything one wishes.

But that is not science.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Rob,

"But that is not science."

I don't attribute it to Plato. I gave the bst source I know for logical proof. I gave the explanation for scientific proof. It is science. I see the photon storm example did nothing for you. It didn't impress Tom eiher. But, it gets to the point of establishing the scientific reality.

James putnam




Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Tom,

"Wouldn't you agree, however, that the meaning of a cat (the animal, not the word) precedes construction of the symbol C-A-T?"

Yes. The symbols C-A-T are merely signs without meaning. They are signs because they point us to where meaning resides.

"Therefore: aren't the symbols that construct meaning consubstantial with the perceived meaning?"

The symbols function as signs. The signs direct us to where meaning resides. The meaning resides inside us always. We agreed on what signs would point us back inside ourselves to retrieve meaning. No meaning is constructed or exists outside of our minds. The letters exist on their own. The meaning they point us to does not exist on its own.

I need to make clear that I am speaking about events that are not defined by mechanical theory. Electrons do repel each other. That repulsion event is attributed to non-intelligent cause. That viewpoint is not representative of the real properties of the universe. The real properties do occur at that level but they are far above tghe level of mechanical interpretations. They contribute to the evolution of intelligent life. They exist for the purpose of evolving intelligent life.

"We could not otherwise agree that C-A-T means anything at all."

We agree on signs so that we may sign to each other. The signs have no meaning outside of ourselves. What we agree to is not that C-A-T means anything other than that it is a sign that points to where we find meaning. C-A-T has no meaning. Cat has no meaning. The words I am typing have no meanings. They are signs which have been agreed to for the purpose of signing to each other.

James Putnam



T H Ray replied on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 17:36 GMT
James,

What reason can you give why I should not reject your view as merely solipsistic?

If we sign C-A-T to one another, and we are talking about different animals, are our descriptions equally valid? I can remember when my grandson, just learning to talk, called every round fruit an apple.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 18:22 GMT
Tom,

"What reason can you give why I should not reject your view as merely solipsistic?"

The reason is that signing is a fact. Even spoken language is signing. What is not a fact is that cat is necessary. The sign agreed to could be otherwise. Cat has no meaning unless each of us already knows to recognize it as a sign that points us to information that already resides within us. The...

view entire post




T H Ray replied on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
" ... the universe does not need me to think in order for it to exist. However, I must think in order that I can know that it exists. That which I think occurs within me. I receive nothing from the outside universe other than signs."

I agree, James. Now, how do you know that the thinking that occurs entirely within yourself refers to anything real outside yourself? The inability to distinguish between those worlds is what solipsism means.

"The signs arrive as photons. My particles change their velocities as a result of receiving those photons. When I think, my particles are changing their velocities."

True. I am reminded that Einstein once said that a symphony can be sufficiently described by variations in sound wave pressure, though that does not at all capture the meaning of a symphony (much less the pleasure one derives from it). There is another step beyond the mechanics of particle interaction, that sorts meaning from noise. It's what you so strongly disdain: theory.

"When I make conclusions, my particles are changing their velocities. Yet, f=ma is not an explanation for why I can think."

It isn't? If you believe that the power of your conclusion changes particle velocities, most certainly F = ma *does* explain why you can think. If on the other hand, you allow that your conclusions are the result of an objective change of velocity in the particle interaction, you require a *theory* to explain how that particular thought relates to the pattern of change in velocity. The language of the event (particle interaction)is independent of the meaning (theory) that you assign to it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
James,

It is really hard to understand what you're driving at, when your argument so obviously blows up at the second step.

You say, "My position: Every problem in physics that is being solved by means of theory can be solved without the theory."

This makes no sense. Theory doesn't "solve" a problem; the solution is the *correspondence* between theory and result. When you eliminate theory as a necessary vehicle for interpreting empirical results, you eliminate any correspondence between what you think the world is, and what you can objectively say about it. If you claim there is no distinction between what you think and how the world works, you deny objective reality altogether.

Even if you are right, your view is not rational.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Tom,

The theory solves the problem for the theorist when it makes successful predictions. The theorist then has reason to believe that they understand the properties involved such as space-time. The predictions do not require the existence of spacetime. The theory can be discarded without loss when solving physics problems. My position makes sense. This appears to be a matter viewpoint. Your description of theory is notone that I accept. For example the belief in the existence of electric charge is theory. The derivation of Maxwell's equations do not require the inclusion of electric charge. I have shown that here.

I have introduced the concept of clearing away theory from physics equations. I have given the example of removing the theory of indefinable mass from f=ma. What I say may not fit with your viewpoint or your preference for definitions, but, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to force theory onto physics equations when it is not only not necessary, it is a harmful practice. Theory introduces disunity.

The means by which we can come as close as is possible to objective knowledge is by developing physics equations that model empirical evidence and not theory. If that is not clear, the equations of space-time model theory. My equation of f=ma with the theoretical units replaced with empirical unts models empirical evidence.

With regard to what is and is not rational, the argument that we learn from what we observe does not explain how we learn from the photon storm. This statement is rational. I have described the problem clearly enough that anyone who understands the problem and is seriously interested in solving the problem will find my statement rational.

James Putnam



T H Ray replied on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 15:27 GMT
James,

You write, "The theory solves the problem for the theorist when it makes successful predictions."

Again, what other criterion does one use to judge the success of a scientific theory?

"The theorist then has reason to believe that they understand the proper scientific ties involved such as space-time. The predictions do not require the existence of spacetime."

I don't know what predictions you are referring to. However, the successful predictions of relativity theory absolutely do require the existence of spacetime. Try and explain Lorentz contraction (special relativity) or Einstein lensing (general relativity) without it, for example.

"For example the belief in the existence of electric charge is theory. The derivation of Maxwell's equations do not require the inclusion of electric charge. I have shown that here."

Maxwell's equations explain the propagation of the electromagnetic field as a continuous phenomenon. Charge, as a discrete property of the field, is a result and not an assumption. So I guess I agree with you that Maxwell's results do not constitute a theory of the origin of electric charge, which is a quantum question and not therefore directly tied to Maxwell's classical field equations.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2013 @ 17:31 GMT
Tom,

"I don't know what predictions you are referring to. However, the successful predictions of relativity theory absolutely do require the existence of spacetime. Try and explain Lorentz contraction (special relativity) or Einstein lensing (general relativity) without it, for example."

I have done that. More than enough has been done in many more areas than just that. You will find...

view entire post





T H Ray wrote on Apr. 2, 2013 @ 10:31 GMT
James,

I don't feel that we are locked in struggle here. I respond because I'm interested in these things. If relativity isn't fundamental, and needs to be "redone" as you say, I would be the first to jump on board. After all, I didn't think Bell's theorem needs to be redone until Joy Christian introduced an extradimensional topological framework. I understood it, because I understand analysis. A continuum theory that is consistent with experimental results and obviates nonlocality ("spooky action at a distance"), facilitates a fully relativistic unified theory -- an attractive prospect to me, because it has an unbroken pedigree back to Galileo, of cumulative and hard-won objective knowledge. I find strong agreement with Vesselin Petkov's simple and powerful statement: "Science never moves backward."

Your approach appears to discard every shred of classical physics that we know, of which relativity is the crowning accomplishment. That would make objective knowledge itself an illusion, and I am willing to entertain that possibility. To do so, however, I have to understand what you're saying -- I don't, because of the many unresolved contradictions.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Tom,

I am not precise as you are in terminology. If the contradictions you feel you see are in terminology, then from your perspective they could exist. From my perspective I think that I am using the words that which I need to say. I don't see the contradictions. I suppose an example of a difference in meanings that I do see is the word theory. I do see theory as being something quite...

view entire post




T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
James,

Yes, that's my point -- if it isn't important to be precise, I agree with you. That is, objective knowledge may not exist at all, and anything I think up is unconstrained by bounds of possibility.

And yes, I can even see why you would characterize "theory" as detrimental to internal knowledge, because it is precisely the job of theory to prescribe bounds. In relation to physics, though, theory is identical to mathematics -- so it confuses me when you use equations to try and explain that theory is an unnecessary component for understanding physics. Try doing it without equations.

To say that mass is indefinable in the equation F = ma is self contradictory, since the equation itself defines mass; i.e., it prescribes a limit to itself in proportion to the rate of change of the rate of change (accelerated motion) of mutually dependent quantities. It's what allows Einstein to extend the limit to a rest energy of E = mc^2, and conclude that in principle E = m. That completely defines mass. And in a completely objective manner validated by experimental results.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2013 @ 12:11 GMT
Tom,

"Yes, that's my point -- if it isn't important to be precise, I agree with you. That is, objective knowledge may not exist at all, and anything I think up is unconstrained by bounds of possibility."

It is important to be precise. I was referring only to terminology respecting the fact that you use physics and mathematical terminology in an exacting manner. That doesn't mean that...

view entire post





Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2013 @ 14:34 GMT
Tom,

Continuing on a new thread:

You: "You wrote, "Empirical evidence consists of measuring patterns in changes of velocity of objects."

To which I replied, "Which is equivalent to changes in states of energy."

And you responded, "Energy is a calculation. It is an accounting procedure. There are changes in position with regard to the strength of a force and the...

view entire post




Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Tom,

You: "I will never be able to get my mind around your philosophy that " ... the correction of physics equations calls for the removal of the invented properties ... " because physics equations -- mathematics in general -- is an artificial, hence "invented" language. It's as if you believe that the equations have some independent reality that requires interpretation by some other...

view entire post




Thomas Howard Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 10:13 GMT
James,

I am going to have to leave off now and get on to other things. It has been interesting and thought provoking, though I profoundly disagree with your premises.

Rather than rehash replies to things we've already covered, and much of which is becoming tediously repetitive, I want to say only:

F = ma and E = mc^2 are phenomenological. That is, even though these equations began as theoretical statements, there is no case in physical observation or experiment that contradicts them. The origin of mass is not at issue here -- we've got quantum field theory to tackle that question.

Further, though, the path from F = ma to E = mc^2 is solidly connected, and shows us that there is a limit to mass acceleration that preserves identity between rest mass and rest energy. They are interchangeable. I know that you object to getting mass "for free" from space and time alone; however, that appears to be the case in nature. I tried to pry from you a direct derivation for your belief that mass preexists space and time, because I thought that you would see, through making that effort, that your contention over the "fundamental units of length and seconds" is exactly the same thing as space and time. And from that, be able to see that in order for unity in nature to be served, that space and time are not independently real -- just as Minkowski had it -- and only the unity of spacetime guarantees unity of physical phenomena.

From my point of view, you seem to be fighting aganst yourself.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 13:11 GMT
Tom,

Ok, I understand:

"I know that you object to getting mass "for free" from space and time alone; however, that appears to be the case in nature. I tried to pry from you a direct derivation for your belief that mass preexists space and time, because I thought that you would see, through making that effort, that your contention over the "fundamental units of length and seconds" is exactly the same thing as space and time. And from that, be able to see that in order for unity in nature to be served, that space and time are not independently real -- just as Minkowski had it -- and only the unity of spacetime guarantees unity of physical phenomena."

For the record:

I don't need pried into a belief in theory. Theory needs to be pried from physics equations beginning with f=ma. Length an time in f=ma are not space and time. They have only to do with objects and their behavior. The behavior of objects is the stuff that empirical evidence is made of. Patterns in changes of velocity of objects do not represent activities performed by space and time. Finally: Nature is not theoretical.

"From my point of view, you seem to be fighting aganst yourself."

Just to be clear in case this expresses your view that I controadict myself, I do not see that being the case. I do see theorists espousing a universe consisting of a mix of real, empirically substantiated, properties and invented properties. I am fghting against the invented properties. That includes properties that are real but their representations are invented, without empirical justification, and therefore are forced to become subservient to theory.

That was a nice chat. Thank you for your time and messages.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 10, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Tom,

You: "I only say what conventional scientific method says: the truth of a proposition is determined by correspondence between abstract theory and physical result."

You quoting me: You replied, "This cannot be the standard scientific practice."

You: I assure you that it is. It is exceedingly easy to verify -- simply by random checking of peer reviewed journals in the physical sciences -- that the scientific content of the articles contain nothing more than correspondence between theory and result. When physical results are not available, theoretical results and thought experiments may be substituted; the principle, however, is the same."

It wasn't that simple or silly or whatever. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said it should not be the standard scientific practice. My position is that it can't be for reasons given in that message.

The rest of what you say just shows that we haven't communicated. Lets take a break. Nothing is moving.

James Putnam




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.