Dear James Putnam,

As you've pointed out in previous essays, mass is not properly defined by F = ma. Richard Feynman also pointed out that F = ma is a circular definition. He concluded that its utility derives from "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force". However this does not solve the problem you're focused on.

Einstein confused (or clarified)...

view entire post

Dear James Putnam,

As you've pointed out in previous essays, mass is not properly defined by F = ma. Richard Feynman also pointed out that F = ma is a circular definition. He concluded that its utility derives from "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force". However this does not solve the problem you're focused on.

Einstein confused (or clarified) things further with E = m (c = 1) which identifies mass with energy. We know that fields have energy, hence are 'substantial', but their materiality is more like a 'perfect fluid' than 'solid matter'. From this, one might conclude either that energy undergoes a phase transition and becomes 'solid matter' or that, under appropriate conditions, a compressed configuration of the field become stable enough to endure as an observable 'object'.

In any case, it is as you say:

"Some things are undeniable and the lack of definition of mass is one of them."

In my opinion the 'Higgs field' is evidence of the confusion of which you speak. It appears to be the only 'mass' without spin. I really do believe your focus on fundamentals is valuable and well-placed. It treats one of those issues that is right in front of our eyes, but we don't see it. As you note, the first properties of physics have no properties pre-existing them. "There are no properties available by which length and time may be defined," nor "predefined properties before the introduction of force and mass." In other words, the whole thing is bootstrapped. JRC asked me last week what are the units of time, decoupled from space. The answer is one second per second.

After discussing thermodynamics and Coulomb's law in similar terms you address 'space-time', "both properties that are completely unavailable to us to affect them." You note "there's been no experimentation directly upon the properties of space and time." Einstein acknowledges his 'imaginary experiments' or 'gedanken' experiments from which he concluded that 'simultaneity is relative'.

I had forgotten that your first essay was on 'The Absoluteness of Time' in the first FQXi contest. Perhaps I'm catching up with you in my current essay. I hope you will read my essay and grace me with your comments. I will score your essay later.

Best wishes, my friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Thank you Edwin,

This essay was not finished and was submitted anyway. I tried writing it, but the subject kept changing. It wasn't until the last day that I knew what the subject and title would be. So, as the deadline loomed, I submitted it without properly proofreading it. In the past this happened once before and a math error crept in back then just as it has in this essay. Back then it...

view entire post

Thank you Edwin,

This essay was not finished and was submitted anyway. I tried writing it, but the subject kept changing. It wasn't until the last day that I knew what the subject and title would be. So, as the deadline loomed, I submitted it without properly proofreading it. In the past this happened once before and a math error crept in back then just as it has in this essay. Back then it tortured me. This time it doesn't. There is no way that theoretical physicists are going to recognize let alone acknowledge that they have errors in their foundation. So my essays do not do well here. However, I keep coming back, because FQXi.org is a quality organization and the privilege that they offer to participate alongside professionals is golden. I want to be included in their history. This is though not a place for me to gain an audience. I have taken the step of starting a Facebook group where free expression of scientific ideas for all members is enforced by me. There is resistance there also; however, there are well over 2000 members and discussions have become more serious. I have made the corrections necessary to my essay. I will post it there also. The overlord problem has been removed from physics discussions. I am glad to hear from you again. I think about you and your work often. You are ahead of theoretical physics because of two things. Theoretical physics contains uncorrected errors. It contains fundamental disunity. It has nothing to say about the existence of the most important properties of this Universe, i.e., intelligence and life. You are far more accurate in your presentations. You are far more diligent in establishing your foundation. You are far more scientific in that you address the existence of intelligence and life. You present highly competent professional work that addresses the fullness of this Universe. Theoretical physics (this is just my opinion for readers and not a reflection on your opinions) is stuck in the mud with foundational errors such as believing that the letter 't' in physics equations represents the fundamental property of time; and, omissions such as the failure to define mass; and, is locked into a low level mechanical interpretation of the nature of this Universe that gave birth to intelligent life culminating in human free will. Much of my concerns have been presented here at this great website FQXi.org. Good luck in the contest. My interest lies elsewhere in firmly establishing a place on the Internet where the free exchange of scientific ideas is protected and promoted. I don't know enough physics, but, like Mr. Miyagi advised, I trust in the quality of what I know. Good to hear from you. Glad to see you back again. With respect, your friend James

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

(1) Defining What a Physics Property Definition is. The first property to be defined is mass. I refer to it in what follows as the first physics definition or just the first definition:

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other...

view entire post

How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

(1) Defining What a Physics Property Definition is. The first property to be defined is mass. I refer to it in what follows as the first physics definition or just the first definition:

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other properties. The order of the properties matters greatly. For example, the first properties of physics are those in which empirical evidence is communicated to us. Those properties are the two properties of length and 'time'. There are no other properties that precede length and 'time'. For this reason neither of them can be expressed in terms of other properties. This is why they are indefinable. One can explain what length is to them and the same for 'time'. Those are not physics definitions. Those are most often Layperson types of definitions. Even if a physicist gives their explanation that, for example, length is what a meter stick measures; that answer is not a physics definition. It is correct, but it is not a mathematical definition that can be used in physics equations.

Here are some examples of physics definitions: F=ma is the definition of force; E=Fxd is a physics definition of energy. In the case of E=Fxd, the two properties of force and length precede the property of energy. Therefore, the property of energy is defined in terms of properties that precede it. All properties of physics mechanics can be defined in terms of just three properties:> Mass; Length; and, Time. The definition of momentum is P=Fxt, etc. Physics definitions are usually easy and automatic to write. They are like branches on a tree where the first definition takes place on the trunk.

(2) Physics Lacks a First Property Definition. In this way all physics definitions are connected back through one another until there is just one definition, the first definition. Unfortunately, since mass was declared to be the third indefinable property of mechanics, there is no first definition. This is a problem for theoretical physics. It is straightforward for physicists to follow physics definitions all the way back toward the properties of empirical evidence, but the missing first definition breaks the connection between all definitions of the properties of mechanics, and, the properties of empirical evidence.

There are losses that physics suffers because of the missing first definition. One type of loss is that we do not learn what properties are. Yes we know that f=ma, but, we don't learn what force is. We know that E=-Fxd, but, we don't know what energy is, etc. A second lass is that fundamental unity is immediately lost when we fail to make that first physics definition. The break between empirical evidence and the rest of the properties of mechanics prevents dependency from being continuous from the properties of empirical evidence on up through all definitions of mechanics.

The only way in which the connection between length and 'time', and, the defined properties of mechanics can be restored is to fill in the blank left by our failure to create the first definition. The property of mass has no equation expressing it in terms of other properties that precede it. Its unit of kilogram has no equation expressing it in terms of other units that precede it. The reason for this failure is that it was not understood how mass could be defined as a combination of the only two properties that precede, i.e., length and 'time'.

Both length and 'time' don't seem substantive. Yet the properties that follow them do seem substantive. Force, energy, momentum, power, etc., all seem substantive. How does one define a substantive property like mass from two non-substantive properties like length and 'time'? What possible combination of length and 'time' could be set equal to mass; thereby, defining mass, i.e., M=?

(3) The Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Mass. Courtesy of FQXi.lorg Essay Contest Essayist Andrew Beckworth: The Encyclopedia Britannica definition for mass is:

https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. The greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change produced by an applied force. By international agreement the standard unit of mass, with which the masses of all other objects are compared, is a platinum-iridium cylinder of one kilogram. This unit is commonly called the International Prototype Kilogram and is kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sèvres, France. In countries that continue to favour the English system of measurement over the International System of Units (SI), the unit of mass is the slug, a mass whose weight at sea level is 32.17 pounds.

Weight, though related to mass, nonetheless differs from the latter. Weight essentially constitutes the force exerted on matter by the gravitational attraction of the Earth, and so it varies from place to place. In contrast, mass remains constant regardless of its location under ordinary circumstances. A satellite launched into space, for example, weighs increasingly less the further it travels away from the Earth. Its mass, however, stays the same.

According to the principle of conservation of mass, the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves. If a body split into pieces, the mass divides with the pieces, so that the sum of the masses of the individual pieces is equal to the original

mass. Or, if particles are joined together, the mass of the composite is equal to the sum of the masses of the constituent particles. However, this principle is not always correct.

With the advent of the special theory of relativity by Einstein in 1905, the notion of mass underwent a radical revision. Mass lost its absoluteness. The mass of an object was seen to be equivalent to energy, to be interconvertible with energy, and to increase significantly at exceedingly high speeds near that of light (about 3 × 108 metres per second, or 186,000 miles per second). The total energy of an object was understood to comprise its rest mass as well as its increase of mass caused by high speed. The rest mass of an atomic nucleus was discovered to be measurably smaller than the sum of the rest masses of its constituent neutrons and protons. Mass was no longer considered constant, or unchangeable. In both chemical and nuclear reactions, some conversion between mass and energy occurs, so that the products generally have smaller or greater mass than the reactants. The difference in mass is so slight for ordinary chemical reactions that mass conservation may be invoked as a practical principle for predicting the mass of products. Mass conservation is invalid, however, for the behaviour of masses actively involved in nuclear reactors, in particle accelerators, and in the thermonuclear reactions in the Sun and stars. The new conservation principle is the conservation of mass-energy. See also energy, conservation of; energy; Einstein’s mass-energy relation.

4) Reviewing the Content of the Encyclopedia Britannica’s Definition of Mass.It says that mass in physics is a measure of inertia. Any unique property is only a measure of itself. The phrase "is a measure of" usually is used to mean is proportional to. Being proportional to is not being the same as. In the case of the Law of Inertia. Mass is not the same thing. Mass is resistance to force. Inertia is the name given to the fact that a body at rest or in motion will continue in that state unless acted on by a force. It was not a measure of resistance to force.

However, meanings of words change and words change. There is resistance to force and the name applied first to it is "inertial resistance". This is not inertia, but it is acknowledged to be a property of matter. Matter resists force. So this property of inertial resistance became called mass. There is no difference between the two other than names. It has been customary to call resistance to force the property of mass. So for the third time: Mass resists force. This tells us what mass does but doesn't tell us what mass it. It doesn't tells us: What is there about the nature of mass that it causes the effect of resisting force?

(5) Empirical Evidence gives Guidance on how to Define Mass. Empirical evidence tells us everything that we will ever know about a property. It is empirical evidence that infers that a property exists by the patterns of acceleration of objects. That acceleration is an effect. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We learn what cause does, but not what cause is. Mass is the cause of resistance to force. We do not learn what mass is in the sense of what is it physically that it can

resist force? Plus, we do not yet have a physics definition of mass. That is because a physics definition is a mathematical statement where a property is expressed in terms of properties that preceded it

For example, empirical evidence consists of measure of length and 'time'. Those measurements tell us, by means of photons, that particles of matter have accelerated. We don't get information in the form of velocity. We learn that change of velocity with respect to time is inferred to exist. Learning about changes of velocities with respect to time comes from just two properties. The point of this is that measurements of just two properties inform us about the existence of acceleration. Acceleration on one side of an equation can tell us a lot about a property that is on the other side. It all depends upon the units. If there is an undefined property, then it necessarily will have undefined units.

Mass is a property that is undefined and its unit of kilogram is undefined. Kilogram is not expressible in terms of the two units of the properties that precede mass, i.e., meters and seconds. If mass were defined then its unit of kilogram would be expressible in the units that precede it. Knowing this, we can work backwards to learn how to define both kilogram and mass. Here is how it can be done. Solving f=ma for f/m=a, it is seen that in order to establish direct dependence upon empirical evidence and the units of empirical evidence, the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to those of acceleration.

There are a few combinations that can be tried; however, since this is the work that I have done, the one combination that leads to the formulation of the equations of physics is for mass to have the units of inverse acceleration. Writing this out: kilograms=seconds^2/meter. In other words, mass inversely represents a property that is accelerating. Since mass is one of just two properties, the only two, that are inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence, the property that mass is inversely representing is of the most fundamental importance.

The empirical evidence consists of charged particles accelerating and releasing photons that carry an increment of that acceleration away. The photon, if unmolested during its travel, eventually is absorbed by another charged particle; and, that particle is caused to accelerate by the amount stored in the photon. The point is that there are two kinds of information involved in communicating empirical evidence to us. One is that the photon carries an increment of acceleration. The other is that light is involved directly as the delivery system. It delivers acceleration.

(6) Conservation of Acceleration. I propose that the acceleration that is inverse represented by mass is the acceleration of light. This contradicts Relativity theory; however, in order to keep Relativity theory, it would have to be time that accelerates. Time is involved in the delivery system. However, analysis shows that when a photon is released or absorbed it does so for an incremental measure of time that is a Universal constant. The

conclusion is that time does not accelerate; therefore, light has to be the property who's acceleration is inversely represented by the property we know of as mass. My finding is that an increment of positive acceleration of a particle is offset by an equal but opposite signed increment of acceleration of light.

(7) Forming a New System of Units Based upon Meters and Seconds. While readers may doubt this or want to consider it longer, a warranted scientific decision. I will introduce the system of units that this finding has given us by virtue of having re-established direct dependence upon empirical evidence. Two things have happened. There is now a system of units that is fully based upon the units of empirical evidence. Also, fundamental unity has been fully restored to the equations of physics.

Fundamental unity follows automatically from establishing complete dependence of the definitions of all physics properties on the properties of empirical evidence. More directly, since all properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units, this follows automatically from having all units for all defined properties of all of physics be formed from combinations of the two units of empirical evidence.

The new system of units formed solely from empirical units are:

The unit of length is the meter.

The units of time is the second.

The unit of force is: Newton=(meters/second^2)/(Meters/second^2)

The reduced form of the unit of force is unity (1).

The unit of energy is: Joule=Newtons*meters.

The reduced unit of energy is: Joule=meters.

The units of momentum are: Newtons*seconds.

The reduced units of momentum are: Seconds

The act of defining mass leads to the definition of temperature and defined units for temperature.

The units of temperature are: Newtons*(meters/second).

The reduced units of temperature are: Meters/second.

It is understood from the full units of temperature that this is read as energy/second, i.e., the rate at which energy is transferred.

The rest of the units of mechanics and thermodynamics follow automatically, i.e., the result of re-establishing fundamental unity in the equations of physics.

view post as summary

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT

view post as summary

Dear James A Putnam

Very nice words in your OP...."To be foundational, theory must have established and maintained a direct dependence upon empirical evidence with the goal of learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. Three pervasive problems with theoretical physics are identified: 1. The failure to define mass; 2.Lack of attention to detail; 3. Accepting indirect...

view entire post

Dear James A Putnam

Very nice words in your OP...."To be foundational, theory must have established and maintained a direct dependence upon empirical evidence with the goal of learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. Three pervasive problems with theoretical physics are identified: 1. The failure to define mass; 2.Lack of attention to detail; 3. Accepting indirect empirical evidence as sufficient support for orthodoxy; 4. Lack of a foundational system of units; 5. Turning learning backwards.......'

I request you to please have a look at Dynamic Universe model...

It is based on experimental evidences and observations, without FIVE the problems you mentions above...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

"The Failure to Define Mass". There is no such failure. Formal systems are built in basis to elementary concepts, not defined in terms of anything more fundamental and characterized only by formal properties laid down for them; and derived concepts, which are defined in terms of the elementary concepts; and of other derived concepts. Mass is an elementary concept.

"It was not understood how...

view entire post

"The Failure to Define Mass". There is no such failure. Formal systems are built in basis to elementary concepts, not defined in terms of anything more fundamental and characterized only by formal properties laid down for them; and derived concepts, which are defined in terms of the elementary concepts; and of other derived concepts. Mass is an elementary concept.

"It was not understood how to formally define both mass and force from f=ma". "The equation f=ma is the introduction of mass. The equation f=dp/dt is not the beginning equation. Physicists did not understand how one could define both mass and force in f=ma". Not even close. F=ma is neither the definition of force nor the definition of mass. Mass is an elementary concept, and force is defined in other ways. The expression F=ma is an equation of motion, and it is introduced as an axiom in the formal system. Truesdell gives a nice presentation of the formal structure of the theory of mechanics (see attachment).

"Mass is pervasive in physics equations. It is absolutely necessary that it be known what it is; otherwise, that lack of knowledge is spread widely

throughout theory". Not only mass doesn't need to be defined (because it is a elementary concept), but this argument about 'absolutely necessity' is invalid because it is circular. Imagine that we decide mass isn't elementary and define it using one or more concepts. Those concepts will be now elementary in the formalism, and so they will be undefined, so we are back to the starting point. And if we consider those new concepts also require definition, we will only define them using a new set of concepts... the whole argument is absurd. A finite formal theory has to rely on a set of elementary concepts, which cannot be defined in terms of anything more fundamental, because there is nothing more elemental, obviously.

"one must define both mass and force using a combination of only length and time", which doesn't make any mathematical or physical sense.

"The best choice is to accept mass as an inverse representation of some property that is undergoing acceleration." Besides all the above criticism, doing something as (m = 1/ u) where u is "some property" doesn't add any new physics to the description. It is basically replacing a concept by other. There is no net advance in our understanding of Nature by a mere change of labels.

"Force would then be defined as a ratio of two accelerations." Assuming same mass, the ratio of two accelerations is the ratio of two forces.

"The newton would be defined as a ratio of the units of acceleration". Since both accelerations share the same unit the ratio is dimensional and cannot be used to define the newton. But this was obvious because the ratio of two accelerations is not a force, but an adimensional quantity, a mere number.

"The units of mass tell us that we are being led to learning that there is a very fundamental property that has velocity and undergoes changes of velocity. What is the property? It is light. It is true that the speed of light always measures locally C". Light doesn't have velocity, it has only speed, because photons cannot be localized. C is not only valid locally, but also globally (in absence of gravitation).

"However, physics would still have the same ailment when it got to thermodynamics. Temperature has been and remains an undefined property ever since it was introduced". Another invalid claim. Several definitions of the concept of temperature are available on the literature since more than one century. The usual definition in modern thermodynamics literature is T == (partial S / partial U)^-1. Temperature can be also defined without using entropy.

"2. Lack of Attention to Detail". It is kind of ironic this article accuses physicists of lack of attention to detail.

"What is the meaning of k in Coulomb's Law? [...] The k in Coulomb’s law is the most important term in the equation". k is the coupling constant and it measures the strength of the interaction for given set of distance and charges; k is important, but it isn't the most important. The functional dependence on distance or the dependence on charges are as important as k.

"The only place for new knowledge to enter Coulomb’s Law is in the proportionality constant". Not true, in fact new physics enters in the distance part, when we do corrections to physics for small scales. The part related to the charges is also a place for new physics; e.g. when we consider the physical effect of screening of charges in a polarizable medium, or when we consider electric currents.

"Removing 4pi from k and placing it with r^2 gives us ko the true pure constant of proportionality." Which is useless, because (i) the physics doesn't change by simply moving a constant from one place to another, (ii) because 4pi would be still needed in other expressions as that for potentials, and (iii) because two different concepts of distance would be needed at once.

"here has been no experimentation directly upon the properties of space or time". Space and time aren't objects that one can manipulate.

"The way in which this can be known is to recognize that there are no units of measurement for either one. The units of seconds are not units of a fundamental property of time. The units of meters are not units of a fundamental property of space". No. One can measure both 'space' and time, we have well-known operational definitions and apparatus to measure both even to very high accuracy and precision. Moreover, claims such as "units of seconds" are meaningless; the unit is "second" (without plural) and second is unit of time, so "units of seconds" is as saying "units of units of time", which doesn't make sense.

"Space is not an object. There are no specimens of either space or time contained in any laboratory anywhere. Both are completely inaccessible to us for the purposes of measuring, or affecting them, or being affected by them." The first part is absolutely correct. They aren't objects. The late part is so wrong as pretending that we cannot measure velocities or the concentration of a substance because velocity and concentration aren't objects. Velocity, concentration, 'space' (really position) and time are physical properties associated to objects, and those properties can be measured, as the long history of science demonstrates.

"The letter ‘t’ represents our substitute for the indefinable property of time." Time is an elementary concept, as mass.

"For those who are not aware of this, Empirical evidence is communicated to us in terms of meters and seconds only". First, there is here a glaring confusion between the property and some specific unit associated to it (I can measure time in other units aren't the second). Moreover, a complete description of Universe cannot be build only over the concepts of position and time; we need masses, charges,...

Next section repeats the same misguided claims such as "The units of a defined mass are units of inverse acceleration."

"This result shows that temperature is the rate of transfer of energy between molecules". This is not temperature; the temperature of noninteracting molecules is well-defined.

"However, the use of these units allows for the discovery that the Universal Gravitational Constant is actually the square of the gravitational force between two neutrons, as measured by an observer located on one of the neutrons, separated at a distance of the radius of the hydrogen atom locally measured as 4.8x10^-11 meters". I don't know what is this radius, Bohr radius is 5.3 10^-11; but the numerical value is of little importance here; the really important here is that gravitational constant is not the square of the force. Such claim is completely meaningless because force (Newtonian) is the product of G, the masses, and inverse of square distance.

Similar remarks about meaningless claims made in the Essay, such as "This makes for a very big change. Fundamental unity allows for just one cause for all

effects. That one cause is the property that mass is inversely representing. It is the variation of the speed of light. All effects currently credited to one of the four fundamental forces are actually due to the variation of the speed of light".

The quote from the "anonymous physicist" is incorrect. It is not possible to derive Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... from the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy/mass alone. I have searched the source for such quote. Google only reports two results, and both are docs from James A Putnam. In one of docs the phrase is typed without quotation marks; so I conclude that the quote wasn't said by any physicist, but it is a quote from Putnam himself.

Additional comment: The pair of http links in the references section aren't "Usenet files".

view post as summary