Well this didn't get off to such a good start. We always have difficulty communicating. I don't dispute what you have said. My interest is whether or not phd physicists define energy as the capacity to do work, and, that it is not defined as the sum total of force times distance. That is what I am looking for.
James
James Putnam replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT
Tom,
From your link:
"Work is defined as force times distance. Work is a measure of the energy expended..."
Me: Work has units of joules. You are not a phd in physics. My statement is that energy is the sum total of force times distance. And, that total can be calculated at any point over any path on a generalized work diagram. meaning, that I can graph a value of energy for every possible value of force times distance. Then the diagram would be a generalized energy diagram. In any case, my original point had to do with defining energy as the capacity to do work. What is capacity if it is not force? Please explain the fundamental physics properties represented by the 'capacity to do work' without playing a word game?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 10:35 GMT
"I can graph a value of energy for every possible value of force times distance."
Okay. Use your graph to answer this problem:
"Six boys are playing tug-of-war. On Frank's side they exert a combined force of 190 lb, while on George's side, the boys pull with a total force of 200 lb. Which side won? What was the resultant force?"*
(Resultant defined: "a single force that can be substituted for two or more forces without altering the effect.")
Then you can ask a PhD to check your work.
Tom
*_Modern Physics_, Dull, Metcalfe & Brooks, Holt & Co, 1951, p. 125. (My sister's HS physics text.)
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT
Tom,
No interest here. But, to solve for energy integrate force times distance. The 'work' path does not matter. That is why Einstein's energy equation can be derived with a constant force.
What is capacity if it is not force? Please explain the fundamental physics properties represented by the 'capacity to do work' without playing a word game?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
Can't do it, eh?
Of course you can't, because your "energy graph" is total nonsense.
Capacity is identical to potential. Which means that less capacity at one point is more at another. "Work" is what results when potential is actualized. The 'work path' does matter, because force is a vector quantity.
Ask any PhD.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 19:39 GMT
This is all rather easy to understand. The work-energy theorem is that work is equal to the integrated displacement of force.
ΔW = ∫dW = ∫F*dr,
where the endpoints of the integration are implied to mean [0, R] on the right hand side. We can do a change of variables with dr = (dr/dt)dt = vdt with a change of integration endpoints on the right [0, u],
ΔW = ∫F*vdt.
Newton’s second law of motion tells us that F = dp/dt = mdv/dt and so
ΔW = m∫(dv/dt)*vdt.
Now integrate by parts
ΔW = mu^2dt - m∫v*(dv/dt)dt = mu^2 – ΔW
And we get the change in work equal to (1/2)mu^2. Relabeling the u with v we get the standard form of work is equal to the kinetic energy ΔW = (1/2)mv^2dt.
As for potential we rework the problem by using F = -▼Φ = -sum_ie_i∂Φ/∂x_i, which is the directional derivative along the basis vectors e_i. The * is an inner product and so we get
ΔW = ∫F*dr = ΔW = -∫▼Φ*dr = ∫(∂Φ/∂r)dr = Φ(0) – Φ(R) = -ΔΦ
Which gives us the final result that ΔW = -ΔΦ which tells us that the change in work is equal to the negative of the change in potential.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 20:29 GMT
Tom,
(200-190)=10lb to George's advantage.
Lawrence,
I wish you could see that which implements the laws of physics. The mathematical physics is just a small part of what is truly possible. If you could only see that curvature of space-time is like an energy bank. You can take out as much energy, or put back as much energy, as you like...if you only know how. That is something that only an alchemist can show you.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 21:34 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"This is all rather easy to understand. The work-energy theorem is that work is equal to the integrated displacement of force."
I understand the math. What I don't understand is the use of two names for the same thing. W=int(fds) and E=int(fds). They both have the units of joules which are another name for newton*meters. One of your equations says that work is a change in kinetic energy. The other says that work is a change in potential energy. What is it that makes energy a different physical thing from what work is? What physical properties differentiate between them? As I mentioned in an earlier message, Einstein's energy equation can be solved, presumably without objection, as E=int(fds).
The original question at another forum appeared to me to be reasonable: What is energy? The strongly fought for answer that must be accepted under penalty of locking the thread was: Energy is the capacity to do work. Apparently the answer: Energy is the capacity to do work is supposed to be a clear physics answer. It isn't for me. So, I ask what fundamental properties are represented by 'capacity'? I mean properties that go into the making of physics equations.
The mathematical derivation you gave above appears to me to be necessary only because of the convention of having adopted two words and not two properties. Work is a change in energy. What is wrong with calling a change in energy a change in energy? Then perhaps, the question: What is energy? will move further along toward a meaningful physics answer. Neither the switching between the two words or the switching of mathematical symbols seems to really matter.
This message is not meant to be disrespectful. I appreciate that you stepped in to answer it. To be honest with you, I don't see how the mathematics you presented clarifies a real difference, I mean a physics property type of difference, between work and change of energy. The math just reflects back to us that which we earlier decided it would mean when the first equations are derived. With reference to something else I said in an earlier message but rephrasing it: What is the difference between a generalized work diagram and a generalized energy diagram? It appears to me to be only a matter of words. In other words, the objection is that change of energy is work period. Thank you. Your corrections are welcome.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 22:20 GMT
So I guess you really won't be satisfied with the only answer possible, even from a PhD. I didn't really think so.
James, there are many ways to approach a problem in physics. In mathematics, too. One first has to recognize, however, what the problem is. It certainly isn't the identical meanings of "potential" and "capacity." Think of a container's potential to hold fluid.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 22:38 GMT
There is another answer possible, but, changing concepts is not the point of my questions. My questions have to do with why such a weak appearing convention, at least to me, is so strongly heldfast to.
What is capacity if not force?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 30, 2011 @ 23:39 GMT
"What is capacity if not force?"
Potential. Why do you find that so difficult?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT
Ok, one stab at this word game: What is potential if not force? I am looking for recognition of the fundamental physics properties that define potential or capacity?
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 02:51 GMT
IMO energy is not just the potential to cause a change of spatial position, direction or material arrangement but when its potential is actualized it is -the change- that occurs. Its relative mathematical value and direction is equal to ( measured influence or force) x measured change in spatial position giving work done. So I am agreeing on that bit. However no observed change = no observed work, but there is still potential or -capacity to do work-. In the position of the mass, (in relation to other mass or within a field of influence), in the material arrangement of the mass itself and as the inertia of the mass due to continuous unobserved spatial change of position and the kinetic energy of a body in motion. Einstein showed that, theoretically, inertia increases as energy is input to a mass, making it appear heavier. So inertial mass has an amount of energy. All of that gives the object Universal potential energy or capacity for continuously occurring spatial change of all matter, which allows the continual actualization of the Object Universe, seen as the passage of time.IMO. Not the mathematical answer from a PhD that you are seeking but I thought I would throw it in anyway.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 03:10 GMT
Does anyone here think that some physics (physical phenomena) might be too unwieldy to model mathematically? BTW, did anyone ever figure out how to mathematically model the lift of a bumblebee?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
The result ΔW = -ΔΦ basically answers your question. To be honest I think you are getting your mind twisted up around this in ways which are not necessary. I detect this tendency with a number of people who post on FQXi, and have seen this elsewhere as well.
Insect flight is something I sort of got into. The mechanics works differently than bird flight. The wings of an insect execute a figure 8 motion which sets up a rotating column of air above the wings. Bernoulli principle then works, for the column of air has a reduced pressure and this provides the lift. Calculations have been done on this, so the mechanics is not mysterious.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 11:51 GMT
"I am looking for recognition of the fundamental physics properties that define potential or capacity"
Do you think of a glass tumbler as a "force?" It has a potential, a capacity, to contain some quantity of fluid. Is that a "fundamental physics property?"
"Fundamental physics properties" are always defined in terms of motion, James. The _only_ way that your idea of "force times distance" could be true -- as I told you several days ago -- is if the kinetic theory of matter is false. The conversion, transfer and direction of potential energy into force is a function of accelerated mass; i.e., a change in the direction of the motion of a specified inertial quantity. You know, Newton's f = ma, which you believe without reason to be untrue.
You say you understand the mathematics. I don't see how that is possible, without understanding the physics that the mathematics describes. It isn't a word game; it's a game called "physics."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
"The result ΔW = -ΔΦ basically answers your question. To be honest I think you are getting your mind twisted up around this in ways which are not necessary."
Perhaps, from my own perspective, I see it as getting, or trying to get, to the point. The equation above represents changes. The definition 'energy is the capacity to do work' sounds like a static answer. In other words, energy is something waiting around to perform work. So, I see the original question of 'What is energy?' remaining unanswered. I don't know that anyone needs to answer it. However, what I don't understand is why there is an insistance that the question is answered by 'Energy is the capacity to do work?' Further discussion is viewed as arguing for the sake of arguing. I was looking here to read what an expert would say and you have given me that. Thank you again.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
"Fundamental physics properties" are always defined in terms of motion, ..."
If the point of this statement is that we do not know what case is, then it is correct.
Then you went on to return to irrelevant information having nothing to do with the point of this thread.
"You know, Newton's f = ma, which you believe without reason to be untrue."
I am correct about f=ma. I do not say that it is untrue. I do say that neither mass nor force should have been made into an indefinable property. That act was an error that corrupted theoretical physics right from its beginnings. This remark is not suggesting that the mathematics of theoretical physics do not give correct answers. I have corrected the interpretation of f=ma and constructed a unfied theory that explains many things that have otherwise remained unexplained. You may find it interesting that one of those things is 'thermodynamic entropy'.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Georgina,
A PHD reply was sought because it elevates the discussion and establishes a benchmark.
Your message seems to me to assume different fundamental causes as givens. So, there is potential for change everywhere. When energy is explained as the potential to do work, it appears to me to be referring to energy as an answer as to why change occurs. I think this would be tantamount to saying that energy is a cause. I grant to you and everyone that cause exists and it has the potential to bring about change. Is it your position that energy is a cause or are you saying that it is a general term that stops short of explaining cause, but by name at least fills in a theoretical hole in our equations? Or, would you say something different? I guess instead of worrying about what is work vs energy, this applies more to the original question: What is energy? Anticipating a possible response from one or more others, cause is not explained by describing effects.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Okay. I think we're done here.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 19:41 GMT
I tend to agree. I think that people want more of a metaphysical answer to these questions. These questions might have some validity in some philosophical domain, but in physics it really amounts to taking this “as is.”
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
The "as is" approach does not lead to significant new physics. If you're given some lego, and you build the fire engine and the house shown in the instructions, the "as is" approach will help you come up with new kinds of fire engines and houses. But it takes a creative approach to use the lego to create a dinosaur or spaceship using lego. That is the advantage of metaphysical/philosophical thinking.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 31, 2011 @ 22:12 GMT
Hi James,
If cause is used to mean the basis or ground for action then yes I probably am saying energy is a cause. Events happen because they can. There has to be the possibility / potential for them to occur prior to their actualization. If there is not the potential for them to occur they can not happen. Potential ie. Stored energy in all of the forms I previously mentioned, is the necessary precursor to the action that occurs and the actualization of the object reality.
I do not see this as mere linear cause and effect but a continual cascade of multiple interacting events throughout the object universe following one after another in sequence- because they can. (A chaotic natural process from which order is seen to emerge.) That is in uni-temporal Now, the causality front of object reality. Creating what exists ahead of our present observation. If something can't happen then it doesn't. For example a falling stone is stopped by a boulder in its path, but if it is hit by another falling stone which dislodges it from its resting position it can continue to fall.
This works in the model of reality that I have set out in my essay and its discussion thread and elsewhere on this site but not in the space-time model of reality alone, in which there is no causality, but everything past, present and future already exists awaiting observation and could theoretically just as well be observed forward as backwards in time. I don't wish to give all of the Universal potential energy (of the object universe) another name and say that that is the cause of all things because it would just be controversial and unhelpful IMO. Possibly confusing what I am saying with unrelated theological ideas rather than merely indicating correlation with some aspects of theology.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 00:16 GMT
Georgina,
A good straightforward answer.
"If cause is used to mean the basis or ground for action then yes I probably am saying energy is a cause. ..."
Cause is meant as that which is responsible for effects. For example: one object interacting kinetically with another object is commonly referred to as the cause for the resulting effects. From object to object there can continue to be resultant effects observed macroscopically. My perspective is that there is only one cause and it is presently represented as a fundamental property. It is electric charge. In other words, there is a single cause for all of those effects. That is the way I see it. This is just meant to give some possible needed clarification as to my meaning of cause.
"...I don't wish to give all of the Universal potential energy (of the object universe) another name and say that that is the cause of all things because it would just be controversial and unhelpful IMO. Possibly confusing what I am saying with unrelated theological ideas rather than merely indicating correlation with some aspects of theology."
My experience has been that if one speaks about a single cause or an original cause the criticism quickly moves toward describing this concept as probably religiously driven, something beyond the purview of physics. It is not. It is as mechanically founded as are multiple causes defined by theoretical physics. The concept of a single cause, from my perspective, is simply acknowledging the existence of fundamental unity. So, I don't have a problem with others saying there are multiple causes or there is a single cause.
Thank you for stating your position. Your ideas have gotten some valuable exposure here. I hope it has been helpful to you. I saw several examples of positive feedback.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
James,
perhaps to help us all you could elaborate on what you consider electric charge to be and why electric charge is the prime foundational cause of all events in your opinion. (You may have said this elsewhere.) Rather than just being a property related to another of many recognized "sub types" of potential energy. (Difference in charges giving a potential difference, and so the capacity necessary for a change to occur.)I can image lots of situations where other types of potential energy are described but there are also differences of charge present. Is the charge difference necessarily always the cause of the change that occurs?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 02:48 GMT
Georgina,
"Perhaps to help us all you could elaborate on what you consider electric charge to be and why electric charge is the prime foundational cause of all events in your opinion. ..."
Well! I definitely did not make my point clearly. What I meant was that if objects bump around against one another much as gas molecules might do, that all of that activity is due to one cause. That cause is electric charge. I definitely do not say that electric charge is the cause for all effects. Gravity is not due to electric charge. Now to clarify even further, I use electric charge for my example in the way that it is presented by theoretical physics. My real view is quite different. I wasn't presenting my view about electric charge.
I was attempting to differentiate between what might appear to be the case macroscopically: That one effect causes another and so on. I don't say that that view is improper. I simply prefer to put the credit on the fundamental property that is the cause for each gas molecule bouncing toward and then away from the others. The difference is that I say there is one cause for that example. I don't mean one cause for all effects in the universe. Please let me know if this messages either clarifies the matter or just obscures it more?
As an aside: I definitely do not want to defend the concept of electric charge as a true fundamental property. That is not my personal view. I think that there is just one cause for all effects in the universe, but, that cause is not presented in this message or the previous one. Rather, I just wanted to communicate using regular physics concepts.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I have decided to write more about my views. I have a website filled with this information. It does very well. I have posted several pieces of information here, but, they haven't attracted attention. In short form, I will point to the anomalies I have discovered.
The first h=kec is very important. It says that Planck's constant equals Boltzmann's constant times electric charge times the speed of light. It makes no sense in today's theories. However, it was not stumbled upon and it is not an example of playing with numbers and hitting on a coincidence. It was derived as part of a new theory.
Another anomaly is that ec=r where r is the radius of the hydrogen atom. These two anomalies are obviously connected. Something else I might point to is u=s/c where u is magnetic permeability and s is the speed of sound of a medium. The equation works ok for gases and very well for solids. Another, $=1/(sc) where $ is electric permitivity. Again none of this makes sense in normal theory. There are others. They were all derived from a new theory.
That theory is a variable speed of light theory. Matter is the variation of the speed of light. Mass is the inverse of that acceleration of light. The units of mass are those of inverse acceleration which is what f=ma indicates to us. It idicates it for anyone who understands that all properties inferred from empirical evidence must ultimately ube expressible in terms of that empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of data with units involving meters and seconds. The natural empirical units of mass are 1/(m/sec^2).
Here are some important conclusions:
1. Gravity is caused by the slope of the variation of the speed of light.
2. Electric charge is a universal constant measure of time, its empirical units are seconds.
3. Polarity is due to increases and decreases in the variation of the speed of light.
4. Thermodynamic entropy is a measure of time. Its empirical units are seconds.
5. The radius of the hydrogen atom is due to the com binations of the masses, i.e. inverses of the accelerations of light, of the electron and proton. Those masses predict the size of the hydrogen atom without wave concepts needed.
I think that is probably enough to make clearer my view of the operation of the universe insofar as mechanical activity is concerned. Finbally, to sum up, all of this and more is the result of a fundamentally unified theory. By fundamentally unified, I mean it has just one cause for all effects from beginning to end. No emergence, no additional miracles.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 19:03 GMT
Georgina,
With regard to the inexplicable property called energy: Energy is due to force varying across a distance. It does not matter whether that force is moving something else or not. If it exists than there is energy. It is the variation of the speed of light and its effect upon the frequency of photons that is the source of force. The variation of the speed of light occurs over distance. Therefore, the variation of the speed of light is the definition of energy.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Jason,
There is nothing new to the foundations of physics to be found here. This is really basic stuff. One can quibble over the meaning of energy and the like, but this is not relevant to physics particularly.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 1, 2011 @ 22:34 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
I think you may be mistaken, as were generations before you. There is certainly something new to learn about the foundations of physics. Please understand that I do not refer to experimental physics, although that is unavoidably tainted by theoretical physcs, I am speaking in particular about theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of inventing causes. Theoretical physics inserts those inventions into equations and the equations become theoretical interpretations. The empirical basis of the equations is then lost. That is what I think.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 00:10 GMT
This is basically a tempest in a teapot. There is nothing to be learned about the further foundations of physics by beating on the work-energy theorem. In other settings maybe, but in a straight Newtonian setting this is freshman level physics. This really is old hat and nobody is particularly concerned about some deep inner meaning to this.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
My message was not about work-energy.
You: "...This really is old hat and nobody is particularly concerned about some deep inner meaning to this."
Then that is their loss. One problem not yet resolved is that no one knows what cause is. Therefore, causes must be guessed into existence. The difficulty with guessing about cause is that early errors in theoretical physics such as making mass an indefinable property, requires theoretical physics to invent extra causes. So we end up with mass and electric charge as examples of unnecssary complications left over by fundamental theoretical physics.
The problem of what is energy is not insignificant. Its solution requires understanding force. The problem of understanding force is that no one knows what cause is. Cause should not even be included on either the right or left sides of equations. Equations are about beginning states and ending states. When cause, whatever its identity, is included on either the right side or left side of an equation it is evidence of error.
This message is not about energy, which is a secondary interpretation of cause; it is about recognizing that fundamental physics whether long ago or today does not know what cause is and must invent it out of the imaginations of theorists. Incompleteness of correctness along the way makes this endeavor impoossible to get correct.
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
James,
thank you for the clarification of your veiws.I had thought that may be you were thinking of/defining electric charge in such a way as to account for all change.I am sorry for misinterpreting what you were saying. When you mentioned electric charge it brought to mind the ideas of Velikovsky in "Worlds in collision", which were very controversial when first published. Though there is now more evidence of the importance of the electrical and magnetic connections and influences between astronomical bodies.I have enjoyed reading his books in a "what if?" frame of mind.
Never mind you have clearly explained what you meant now. I still think energy can be both the potential at the outset of an event under consideration and the change that occurs leading to a new spatial position and energetic state/ situation. Which is just like saying potential for change and change. I don't really see the need for any other named cause.I think that you are trying to answer a "why" question, rather than a "how" question, to which I think the answer is just -because it can. I find your changing speed of light energy equivalence concept harder to understand, but thanks for sharing it.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 15:26 GMT
The issues you raise are of a metaphysical nature, which did come up in this discussion on energy. In physics we define causality in an operational sense. I think I will defer any discussion on that. As the saying goes, “If you keep doing what you are doing, you will keep getting what you have.” You are expecting physics to answer metaphysical questions, when in point of fact it can’t. There are clear distinctions between philosophy and science, and the two have a very small overlap and there are few historical cases of where one has had a real impact on the other.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 16:38 GMT
Jason Wolfe replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 17:30 GMT
Lawrence,
To your comment, "There is nothing new to the foundations of physics to be found here. This is really basic stuff. One can quibble over the meaning of energy and the like, but this is not relevant to physics particularly."
I think that gravity gives us a loophole to conservation of energy. The fact that the stress energy tensor consists of positive quantities of energy (energy density, stress, momentum,...) and gravitational potential energy is typically negative and attractive, there is the suggestion that +E and -E add to zero. The Zero Energy Universe concept makes sense and is suggestive of a loophole. Conservation of energy says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. They should change that to no NET energy. Even at the moment of the big bang the energy of the big bang E_BB was balanced by a negative gravitational energy. It just took a long time for clumps of energy to form and exert an observable gravity field.
My point is that gravity field generators should be permitted by the laws of physics. Whatever energy it takes to lift (fall into the sky) a 100,000 metric ton star-ship into orbit will seem like a violation of conservation of energy. However, that energy will have a compensating negative gravitational energy. Gravity field generators are allowed to exist because gravity is a loophole to conservation of energy.
That idea is so new, it still has an air of fringe.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 17:56 GMT
The metaphysical tag does not apply. Perhaps I am not yet making myself clear. For example, discussing whether there is a single fundamental cause or several fundamental causes is not unphysicslike. The incorporation of more than one fundamental cause into theoretical physics may be correct. However, it also is quite possible that it is evidence of theoretical errors. usually, if such errors exist, they are not recent, they are buried in past concepts upon which theoretical physics based.
Here is a way of thinking about units. Units do matter and they must match. However, mathing is not enough. Even invented units for invented properties can satisfy the match game. Even more important than matching units is the need to get the units correct first. Invented units for invented properties are not correct units. Instead thay introduce fundamental disunity into equations. They keep properties apart that should not be kept apart. Later efforts to bring unity back into the fold require mystical properties to be introduced that magically unite previously un-unitable properties. The evidence for this practice is that these mystical properties belong in realms beyond our empirical reach. That is where one will find metaphysical concepts in theoretical physics. Metaphysical concepts are not a part of my work.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
Georgina,
thank you for the opportunity to clarify some things.
"I find your changing speed of light energy equivalence concept harder to understand, but thanks for sharing it."
The concept of a variable speed of light is fought against dearly. Yet, it only comes down to this: Either time dilates or the speed of light varies.
With regard to my own work presented at my website, it is definitely the case that most visitors, speaking here only about qualified physicists, consider the things that I say ridiculous. I gave you same of the conclusions and I suspect that you will understand why their reaction is such. However, there are two kinds of visitors, the majority by far that dislike very much what I have to say, then, there are the few who have decided, and have told me so, that they like it very much. I don't put emails on display, otherwise, I probably would not receive any.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jun. 2, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT
georgina,
When I said: "Either time dilates or the speed of light varies.", I should have made clear that effects remain the same. In other words, empirical evidence is indifferent to the choice.
James
report post as inappropriate
hide replies