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


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/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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 5/17/15 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote Working on the introduction to my website. Here is what it says at this...

James Putnam: on 5/15/15 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote Hi Ramin Zahedi, Thank you for your message. I have read your paper. You...

James Putnam: on 4/23/15 at 2:46am UTC, wrote Dear Yafet, I have been in every contest thus far and serious questions...

Yafet Sanchez Sanchez: on 4/23/15 at 1:06am UTC, wrote Dear James, Your essay certainly is a wild ride. I think the effort you...

Akinbo Ojo: on 4/22/15 at 18:58pm UTC, wrote A little to neutralize the 1-bombers. As a regular with me on this forum we...

James Putnam: on 4/16/15 at 0:01am UTC, wrote The magnitude of electric charge is the same as the magnitude of the time...

James Putnam: on 4/14/15 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Hi Akinbo, I think I will take my show on the road. Years have passed....

James Putnam: on 4/14/15 at 4:20am UTC, wrote Adding a correction to my message above so that a universally more...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

George Musser: "Imagine you could feed the data of the world into a computer and have it..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: ""I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics and Empirical Evidence can Reveal Truths If Physicists Eliminate Theorists’ Tricks by James A Putnam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 13:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physics is a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. It relies upon empirical evidence in the form of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Those patterns consist always and only of effects. We cannot learn what cause is from that evidence, only what cause does. Cause remains physics most pervasive unknown. There are though also pseudo unknowns. Pseudo unknowns are the answers to those questions that go unanswered because physicists don't know yet how to proceed forward or have misled themselves to miss the answers due to guesses that have become part of physics equations. Without theorists' guesses, there would be obvious blank spaces in incomplete physics equations. Whenever blank spaces show themselves in physics equations they are fertile ground from which the trick side of theoretical physics sprouts. Unknowns do not stop theorists. Theorists will move forward in the face of the unknown. They use their educated imaginations to invent substitute answers that fill in blanks in physics equations. This essay reports on the damage that this practice often results in. It puts forward a remedy for removing theorists' tricks and for how to reveal empirical truths.

Author Bio

I am the author of original physics derivations posted at my website http://newphysicstheory.com. I write essays about physics, life, and intelligence. Much of what I think about physics theory has been posted here in the Blogs and Forums sections, and in all of the essay contests that have been held thus far.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 16:21 GMT
Hi James,

It looks like your equations did not compile properly. Perhaps you can either ask if this essay can be replaced with the proper equations, or post one here as well.

I'm sorry this happened to you.

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thank you for pointing this problem out to me. I view the equations properly; however, I will investigate this potential problem further. For one solution I attach my file from my computer below:

James

attachments: Mathematics_and_Empirical_Evidence_Deliver_Truth_Unless_Theorists_Play_Tricks.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 21:07 GMT
Here is another source. I just uploaded my essay to Academia.edu Theoretical Tricks

Bookmark and Share


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 17:11 GMT
I checked, the problem seems to be with the browser, Firefox v. 31.5.0. The first attachment also displays improperly, but the second from academia.edu looks fine. The equations also look fine on chrome. I wonder whether there are other essays affected by this.

Armin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 01:58 GMT
James,

Thanks for your praise of my essay, and I read yours at your invitation. It was thought-provoking as I expected. Yes, in a sense theory is a "trick" because it involves extrapolating beyond the "given" from one's own mind. Thoughtful critics of current trends, like Peter Woit, have been skeptical for example of what might be accomplished by string theory and other schemes which could be framed as "castles in the sky." OTOH, people feel a need to rove beyond a stricter approach to reality, since they just can't empirically find all they want to, with means available. My own essay involved theoretically extrapolating physics to spaces with various number of dimensions, since after all we cannot do experiments in such universes. Yet I concluded at the end, that exercise doesn't prove what "really exists" beyond our world, since it is ultimately just a demonstration (altho I'm proud of that) that a class of mathematical models (if other than three spatial dimensions) would not be consistent.

Re your solution to the problem: I am not sure how clear reliance on defining in terms of fundamentals and observable behavior etc. would change the working physics that is mostly in actual use. I presume you expect the same experimental outcomes for electromagnetic experiments that conventional theory predicts. If the satisfaction of knowing he or she is doing things the right way in principle is important to a person, well then that justifies the attitude. It reminds me of those in quantum mechanics who do not think it necessary to elaborate on "what is really there" and we should just find ways to provisionally represent for the sake of calculations. I hope I got your point, because I think the "perspective" is the important thing, not any particular physical outcome you are predicting?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Neil,

Thank you for your meaningful response to reading my essay. By 'meaningful' I am saying that I appreciate a serious inquiry despite the major break with theory that my work represents. A short answer is that: Yes all effects will be accounted for including electromagnetic effects. The long answer, which I have not attempted to present in essay contests, is something that I will...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Neil,

"OTOH, people feel a need to rove beyond a stricter approach to reality, since they just can't empirically find all they want to, with means available."

That is recognized as the case. There will continue to be empirical discoveries that will further present opportunities to understand more. However, the process of understanding begins also at the beginning. My point is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 17:32 GMT
I should make this point clearer: Temperature remains an indefinable property to this day because physicists do not know what it is. If physicists did know what it is, it would now be a defined property. I said it is the rate of exchange of energy between molecules. I say this because the first act of defining mass led to the definition of temperature. In my work, temperature is a defined property. This result demonstrates that fundamental unity is present in the introductory equation f=ma and its presence joins mechanics with thermodynamics. There no longer exists the divide between them that was evidenced by the indefinable status of temperature.

James

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:52 GMT
Let me see if I have your point. The physics is in the definition and use of the standards of measurement. Numbers really are a count of things. Therefore, the idea of a `pure number’ is undefined. Does 1 apple + 1 orange = 2 pears? After definition of standards comes the comparison of counts.

One thing I have difficulty with is the use of the comparison symbols. For example, using your F=ma. F/m = (causes) a. Or the measured quantities m and a transform the calculating system to a abstract F structure where the F’s ( such as F=GMm/r^2)of other measurements may calculate a resultant F on the object - then F/m = (causes) a converts the mapping back to object motion. The GR field equation has the measures of energy and momentum with the potential energy transformed to the geometric world where Riemann geometry allows the removal of one parameter, that makes the multibody solution easier (but still tough without more assumptions about the universe). This mapping operation presents many opportunities for division by 0, or some other hidden, illegal process - thence the problems.

I also have another new theory. http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/ .

I’ll study yours. Developing something in isolation (which is caused by the radical nature of the suggestion being nearly anti-social and, therefore, rejected because of social reasons) lacks good commentary. Do we have any common cause?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 20:54 GMT
John C Hodge,

Great message. Here is a response on one point. Lets see how it is received.

James

attachments: Universal_Gravitational_Constant.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 00:50 GMT
A link to my essay The Absoluteness of Time.

It takes the universal increment of time, the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom, idea even further. Actually that increment of time is the key to achieving full unity for physics equations. It is the proper value to be substituted for incremental time in the denominators of incremental equations. The essay covers more derivations of electromagnetic equations and carries the same increment of time into deriving the link between two different expressions for the Fine Structure Constant.

James

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:26 GMT
Regarding theorists' tricks:

I used the word 'Tricks' because it is part of the contest title. It isn't my first choice. I choose the word 'mistakes'. The difference for me is that the word 'tricks' implies a deliberate attempt to mislead, while, the word 'mistakes' communicates my opinion without accusing anyone of deliberately misleading science. My essay included some examples of my view of mistakes by theoretical physicists. Now I will for posterity list more theoretical mistakes.

The actual first error of theoretical physics is to say something to the effect that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. This is self-evidently incorrect. I will wait a day to see if anyone arrives here and has interests in either arguing for that claim or asking what is the cosmic speed limit if not that of C?

James

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 00:56 GMT
The speed of light is the limit of the speed of light. All effects that are dependent upon the behavior of light share in this limit. However, there is something that is not limited by the speed of light. It is that which causes order to be maintained throughout the universe. One of its functions is to control the speed of light. Its own speed is infinite. In other words, control is always maintained everywhere in the manner necessary to have all of the universe remain orderly. That orderliness has extended all the way from the beginning of the universe until now and the next now. We look far out and far back and what we see of the universe makes sense today.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 01:07 GMT
The next question is: What controls the speed of light? The second error of theoretical physics, already mentioned in my essay as the 'first error', is the indefinable status of mass. The empirically led definition of mass answers the question above.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



lutz kayser wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 07:04 GMT
Dear James,

reading your essay I recognised many of your opinions in your recent papers.

You are touching the right buttons.

Concerning the definition of temperature you are on the proper track. But we need statistical properties in order to calculate thermodynamics. It will always be the properties of a collective giving us meaningful results. This is also true for Quantum Mechanics.On your improvement of Maxwell's equations I have not studied it enough to make a comment. But it sounds promising.

We agree fully on Relativity and the speed of light question. Congratulations.

Good luck for your further studies

Best

Lutz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Lutz,

Thank you for visiting and commenting. Should you return, I would appreciate your view on this response of mine with regard to temperature:

"Concerning the definition of temperature you are on the proper track. But we need statistical properties in order to calculate thermodynamics. It will always be the properties of a collective giving us meaningful results."

When I specify equilibrium conditions, I can do so because of the application of statistical considerations. A definition of temperature is dependent upon direct reliance of empirical evidence and on numbers of molecules so great that statistical analysis can be replaced with equilibrium conditions. Those equilibrium conditions are not representative of actual physical conditions, they follow only abstractly from statistical analysis. But, they are 'perfectly' valid when defining temperature and even more so when it is used as in Clausius' definition of Thermodynamic Entropy. I purposefully used the word 'perfectly' because of its applicability to the justified approximation of equilibrium conditions. This is written as a statement because it does represent my opinion. But, it is intended as a question with regard to your opinion.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 03:39 GMT
Dear James,

I have a question for you. At the top of page 3 in your essay, you divide the radius of the hydrogen atom by the speed of light and you find dt = 1,602 x 10-19 seconds, which is NUMERICALLY equal to the elementary charge in coulombs: q = 1,602 x 10-19 C. The way I understand it, this is what prompts you to replace the charge q by dt later on in your essay. Now, imagine that we had defined the second differently than the length of the solar day divided by 86400… or worst, if we lived on another planet with a different solar day. Then, the numerical value for our speed of light would be different, and dt would no longer correspond to the electric charge in coulombs… Doesn’t this trouble you, or am I missing something?

Thanks!

Marc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Marc,

Hi and thank you for looking at my essay. The unit of Coulomb is dependent upon the unit of second. I am baby sitting my granddaughter :) and will try to write later.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 20:56 GMT
Dear Marc,

As you know, in the MKS system of units the ampere is defined as a constant current present in empty space in each of two parallel conductors infinite in length, one meter apart, and experiencing a force of 2x10-7 newtons per meter of conductor lengths. This definition refers an ampere to a measure of force at a measure of distance. The ampere then is established by...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 02:30 GMT
Marc,

With regard to your observation:

"At the top of page 3 in your essay, you divide the radius of the hydrogen atom by the speed of light and you find dt = 1,602 x 10-19 seconds, which is NUMERICALLY equal to the elementary charge in coulombs: q = 1,602 x 10-19 C. The way I understand it, this is what prompts you to replace the charge q by dt later on in your essay."

This...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 14:26 GMT
Here is an essay that describes the need to chose a system of units carefully: Natural Truth and Systems of Units. It covers much of what I use in my current essay. I may need to write something more where I specifically address the relationship between seconds and coulombs in detail.

James

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 17:43 GMT
Fixing the Units of Physics Equations:

All that we will ever learn about effects we learn from empirical evidence. Furthermore, we learn only about effects. Empirical evidence is always about effects. We receive no empirical information as to what cause is. Empirical evidence tells us only what cause does. For this reason, the equations of physics should include only units of effects. Cause...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 18:24 GMT
Fixing the Units of Physics Part Two:

Here is a link to an essay that uses the MKS system of units to show how to learn that which empirical evidence is telling us: Empirical Truth and Units of Physics.

My next installment will show why the MKS system must be replaced with a system of units that always maintains direct dependence upon empirical evidence. The MKS system does not do that. The final installment will use empirically supported units to derive basic natural units.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

Your essays are hard to read because you focus on radical physical understanding, which is not obtained by simply reading sequence of equations. In the past I found your focus on F=ma as circularly defined to be well worth the effort to reconceptualize the physics it represents. I have not yet absorbed your electrical treatment. I will reread it a few times when things settle down. I have much the same problem as Marc Séguin with the use of a particular number to identify different phenomena, as this seems to be dependent on the units chosen. If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant.

Despite lack of full understanding of your approach I certainly agree with many of your observations, such as that there is no empirical evidence supporting space-time as a real property. And that theorists "imagine substitutes for the unknown" and often "don't believe their tricks are tricks". You say "The guessing and inventing that makes up most of theoretical physics is what needs to be removed from physics equations."

My essay treats a very specific example of this, in which physicists use a simple model of spin in a constant field to derive their understanding of an experiment based on the scattering of dipole moments in a non-constant field. I hope you will read and comment on my essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 17:37 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I accept that while matters look clear to me, I am assuming too much from the reader. It may go so far as my expecting the reader to do work that I should be showing. "Your essays are hard to read because you focus on radical physical understanding, which is not obtained by simply reading sequence of equations. ... . If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant."

I have thought more about your advice. I have to show the link between electric charge and the speed of light. While I argue that the magnitude of electron electric charge is actually a measure of time in seconds for how long it takes light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom, it is, more completely, representing a fundamental relationship to the speed of light. I have mentioned polarity and that it is a property of mass. That will have to be explained also, but after I explain two things. One is why does the coincidence of magnitudes apply to a simplistic inaccurate model of the hydrogen atom? The second thing to be explained I mentioned above: How do electric charge and the speed of light become joined together so fundamentally? The answers to both questions lie in derivations of their units.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 20:36 GMT
I should mention that it isn't just Delta tc that should draw attention, it is also Delta xc. For example, Planck's constant divided by Boltzmann's constant yields a magnitude equivalent to the simplified radius, Delta xc, of the hydrogen atom. The conventional units don't match, but, the new empirical units that follow from defining mass do match. Lastly, Delta xc/Delta tc is the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 21:08 GMT
I guess that it should be said that Planck's constant and Boltzmann's constant are physically related, as evidenced in the message above, and that both describe properties that originate with the hydrogen atom. Even the Universal Gravitational constant can be calculated from properties that include measurements from the simplified hydrogen atom.

My thought while writing these last three messages is that, generally, physicists seem to me to be preferring hidden likenesses to plainly seen likenesses.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I am aware that the work I have presented in my essays has not received recognition of having value. But, I think perhaps the buck stops here with regard to your point that:

"If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant."

The buck stops because what you ask cannot be done. All and any properties are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 03:26 GMT
Edwin,

I need to qualify this statement: "I am aware that the work I have presented in my essays has not received recognition of having value." I was thinking in terms of its reception in general here at FQXi.org. It took me a while to understand that the use of the word "foundational" here does not mean "fundamental" in the way that I understand the meaning of the "fundamentals of physics". It appears to me that "foundational" here means the next steps on top of existing theoretical physics. The fundamentals are considered settled. I find that possibility to be self-evidently wrong. I find that it is self-evident that properties must be actually defined in the strict sense that physics owned historically but has apparently abandoned recently in favor of moving steadily through speculative imaginings.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear James,

I wrote out a nice long reply to you and I've lost it. The gist of it was as follows:

I did not realize that you are working in natural units rather than MKS, cgs, or other conventions. That may (or may not, I'm not sure) make a difference in numerical 'coincidences' [such as 1.602… ~ 1.602 for different entities.] I do think you have a point that "close coincidences of magnitude of electron charge and the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom would never have occurred so readily." Even bearing in mind that "the radius of the hydrogen atom" is also a convention, and also depends on the state of the atom, it is still conceivable to me that you can be right. I do know that it takes the mind a while to absorb new concepts, especially when these are 'out-of-kilter' with the old, well-known, established concepts. I repeat that I found the time I spent thinking about your F=ma issue to be very worthwhile.

For this reason I continue to read and put thought into your unorthodox essays, and I'm pleased that you will read and put thought into my [also unorthodox, even unpopular!] essay.

And I certainly concur that recent physics is heavily based in speculative imaginings. While this is appropriate when there are as many anomalies and as much confusion as is displayed in current physics, it only becomes negative when groups form around a given speculation and become invested in it. Then it's like pulling teeth to get rid of inappropriate speculative theories.

My best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Mr. Putnam,

As I see it, I have a complete skin surface. Every real object appears to have a complete surface of one form or another. one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Hi Joe,

We have communicated in past essay contests. It always seemed to me that we have very different views of the nature of the universe. I am not a physicist so my opinion doesn't count. I guess if you are interested in receiving a response representing my opinion then I would point out to you that:

Quoting you: "All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously."

My response is that: No objects are traveling at the same constant speed. There are situations where several objects are moving at very close to the same variable speed (velocity would be more accurate) and so appear to each other to be moving at very close to the same constant speeds. (Again velocity would be more accurate). However, Everyone's velocities and speeds are always varying even with respect to one another.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 04:31 GMT
Here is a paper from Vixra in which the author used one of my results:

Keplerian restraints on general quantized theories of gravity and the emergence of anomalous electro-gravitic couplings at the Compton scale

Edward Halerewicz, Jr.

University of Illinois at Springfield

One University Plaza, Springfield IL 62703

March 8,2006

Enrolled student. E-mail: ehale02s@uis.edu, halgravity@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 17:19 GMT
James,

I like it that you give direct mathematical ties to individual physical laws and studies. I agree with your remedy for fixing physics in a return to empirical forms. In my "Connections" I show the connections of mind, physics, models, and math to practical solutions in quantum biology, DNA, and the LHC. Certainly empirical evidence not delusion resulted in these achievements.

Good job.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 14:06 GMT
My essay includes a revision of the property of electric charge. The coincidence of magnitudes is not enough by itself. I show a new derivation of replacements for Maxwell's equations. Still more is needed. Throughout my work there is something to notice about the equations. Even though I deal with several areas of physics, some of which in mainstream physics do not involve electric charge, its replacement Delta tc appears everywhere. It is the key to unity in the equations for all areas. The universal constant magnitude of electric charge belongs to all of physics. I have attached an excerpt that in a couple of pages shows its presence in Planck's and Boltzmann's Constants.

attachments: Interpreting_Planck.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 29, 2015 @ 21:34 GMT
It is not expected that many will read these attachments. They aren't complete presentations, but, are only excerpts. The point of presenting them is to show even by glancing how Delta tc appears both in electromagnetism equations and in other subjects also. This attachment shows how Delta tc unifies two expressions for the fine structure constant.

attachments: Unifying_the_Fine_Structure_Constant.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 13:04 GMT
James,

Thanks for your kind comments. While our approaches may vary I found no inconsistency with our key elements. I think yours is by far your best to date and covers important matters. Actual maths aside not only did I find all your assumptions consistent but also a well written expose on the tricks of maths, which I describe more as 'application' errors, but we don't disagree.

Unfortunately I find, even here, such fundamentally important ways of thinking are too different from standard entrenched academic doctrine to be even countenanced by the judges. Will another 5 years of intellectual evolution help? I still hope so.

Very well done.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jose P. Koshy wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 06:17 GMT
Dear James A Putnam,

I do not get the logic why you removed mass from the empirical units. Mass, distance and time appear to be natural to all casual observers of nature. Then why do you single out mass? You say, “The lost fundamental unity cannot be regained until mass is made a defined property with direct dependence upon empirical evidence for its interpretation and use”. But you have not provided an alternate interpretation of mass in the essay. I would like to know how you account for mass, and also why you think distance and time to be empirical units.

I agree with your arguments that force, energy, charge, and temperature are not well defined. In my opinion, bodies always remain in motion, and there is no energy other than motion. In my essay, A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics, I argue that the mathematical equations can be tricky that the conclusions we arrive at from the equations can mislead us. I fully agree with your opinion about space-time: “All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Neither space nor time nor space-time has ever been shown to have velocities or to have experienced changes of velocities”.

Regarding hypotheses or guess work, everybody will agree with you 'in principle': “Guessing, even by professionals, is a temporary convenience or it is a fault. Prove it or remove it. There is a third temporary position: Admit that it is a placeholder so that all, without personal attacks or censorship or banning, may work toward removing it”. However, 'in practice', things may be different.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 22:18 GMT
Hi Jose P. Koshy,

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

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

Expressing my response from my viewpoint: I didn't remove mass from empirical units. I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 02:07 GMT
There is no avoiding this change in theoretical physics: The removal of mass' indefinable status. Mass is clearly inferred to exist from empirical data. That empirical data never contains units of kilograms. It always consists of measures of distance and time. The empirical evidence for f=ma consists entirely of patterns in changes of velocities. Before mass was recgnized to exist, there were...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 04:20 GMT
Adding a correction to my message above so that a universally more important correction can be made to theoretical physics.

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

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 00:01 GMT
The magnitude of electric charge is the same as the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters, the radius of the simplified hydrogen atom. No matter how many times I point out this amazing occurrence, it is ignored by others. So, I will write a paper explaining how the cause of this occurrence is in the definition of units. The units are the vehicles by which errors about the natures of properties become pushed into physics equations. There are other errors that followed this route, and, they have been explained in my essays and discussions. With regard to the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters it is the only truly universal, both local and remote, constant. The length of 4.8x10-11 meters is a local constant. The two together form the speed of light. They are the two givens of magnitudes of constants. All other constants can be calculated from physical conditions. This includes the 'Universal Gravitational' constant for which I have also provided the calculation.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 05:52 GMT
James,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. It prompted a review of yours to see if I rated it and found that I did on 3/26.

A Wired Magazine article inspired my Euler Identity reference: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/eulers-identity/

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear James,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 12:40 GMT
Dear James,

Well done on your thought provoking essay. I fully agree that there might be error in not properly understanding mass but I think with the amount of knowledge available at the time this was unavoidable. Nevertheless, this historical error has led to advances in some understanding the calculable aspects of dynamics and the implications of F = ma.

Since we talk of fundamentals, and you have identified length (space) and time (seconds), it seems to me that since all that has mass has some length, i.e. occupies space, then space is more fundamental than mass, making mass to then in some sense be a derived property from the peculiarity of behavior of some region of space. If such behaviour changes, mass can be lost from that region.

Einstein's E = mc^2, also suggests that mass can be lost and converted to energy, i.e. what has mass can become massless, and what is massless can acquire mass. What do you think?

Regards and all the best in the competition,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 15:48 GMT
Hi Akinbo,

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

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

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:58 GMT
A little to neutralize the 1-bombers. As a regular with me on this forum we will engage more after the contest.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 17:44 GMT
James,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/27, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. Thanks for checking out mine as well.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yafet Erasmo Sanchez Sanchez wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear James,

Your essay certainly is a wild ride. I think the effort you put to understand mathematics and nature from another point of view is remarkable.

If I understood correctly you want to make physics concepts as empirical as possible and you claim that:" The general theory of relativity presents space-time to us as a real property.

There is no empirical evidence to substantiate this claim."

If the detection of gravitational waves becomes a fact how would that change anything of your discussion?

Kind Regards,

Yafet

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Yafet,

I have been in every contest thus far and serious questions have been very rare. Thank you for being here, it makes my receiving eight ones thus far inconsequential. Here is my answer: Gravity type waves will be observed, and, they will be observed locally as patterns of changes of velocities of objects. My work begins and ends with demonstrating the existence of fundamental...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 17, 2015 @ 23:32 GMT
Working on the introduction to my website. Here is what it says at this time:

"Theoretical physics is a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is not the foundation science it is often portrayed as. It is not about the foundation of life and intelligence. It relies solely upon empirical evidence in the form of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Those patterns...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



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.