| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"James A. Putnam" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2004 12:55:16 AM |
| Object: |
Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our
scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the
universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of
relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics only offers imagined
possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns
found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.
If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will
represent only a rudimentary, elementary level of interpretation of
the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virture of
its being mechanical. A physics theory-of-everything would not be a
theory of everything. It would only represent an attempt to unite
mechanical knowledge. The most important effects of the universe would
not be included. Mechanical unity will not explain life and
intelligence.
Not only does physics theory fail to describe the natures of these
crucial properties, it even fails to describe the natures of
mechanical properties. The properties offered by theoretical physics
are magically bestowed upon matter. They are the 'givens'. For
example, mechanical forces are theoretical 'givens'. The universe does
not give us these 'givens'. The theorists gives them to us. They are
guessed into being.
If fundamental 'givens' were not conjured up, then theoretical
development would stop. The reason for this is that if unity cannot be
established for different patterns in effects, then we are stymied in
how to proceed unless we presume these different patterns are due to
separate, unique fundamental causes. So disunity is purposefully
introduced into fundamental theory. The causes are introduced
separately and uniquely. Their disunity is evidence of our limited
understanding.
That which remains unknown undermines understanding. If it is admitted
that 'givens' are temporary substitutes for not knowing how to show
unity, then the practice is not permanently harmful. It is when the
empirically unknown is imaginatively transformed into the
theoretically known that harm occurs. When it is decided things are
'known', then they are made permanent theoretical cornerstones.
The further development of higher level theory relies upon their
existence. Their reality becomes indispensible to the theorist. New
permanent names and units of measurement are introduced into the
equations used to formulate the theory. Either one of these steps can
introduce falsehoods. The unique units make the mathematical
equations, which are initially based upon patterns in empirical
evidence, subservient to theory. This practice artificially restricts
the usefulness of the equations. If unity exists at the fundamental
level, it is mischievously made hidden from us. This practice of
guessing at answers, no matter how well educated the guesser, is
highly prone to error.
When a physicist speaks of momentum, energy, electric charge, gravity
or any cause of change of velocity as if they have unique,
fundamental, physical presence, then they should explain how this is
known. If a physicist chooses, because of pre-existing theory or
logical inclination to guess about the nature of existence, then all
theory evolved from these guesses is also a guess. As evolved theory
it may seem to have passed stringent criteria, but as empirical
knowledge it has not. If the guesses are wrong then the theory is
wrong.
The possible scientific penalty is typified by the theory of mass. The
physical cause of the effects we attribute to 'mass' has never been
understood. Learning what mass is could suddenly change everything.
This failing is pervasive within the fundamentals of physics theory.
No one can explain physical natures for force, mass, energy, momentum,
electric charge or anything else. We know what things do, but, we do
not know why they can do it.
What we do know is they cause much more than just changes of velocity.
They are far more powerful than are the proposed theoretical
properties of a mechanical universe. Real scientific criteria requires
these theoretical guesses be replaced with real knowledge. Real
knowledge is recognizable by its applicability to the real universe. A
universe that causes changes of velocity and life and intelligence.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
15 Jan 2004 07:47:00 AM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401142255.43973a7e@posting.google.com...
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our
scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the
universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of
relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics only offers imagined
possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns
found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.
If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will
represent only a rudimentary, elementary level of interpretation of
the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virture of
its being mechanical. A physics theory-of-everything would not be a
theory of everything. It would only represent an attempt to unite
mechanical knowledge. The most important effects of the universe would
not be included. Mechanical unity will not explain life and
intelligence.
Not only does physics theory fail to describe the natures of these
crucial properties, it even fails to describe the natures of
mechanical properties. The properties offered by theoretical physics
are magically bestowed upon matter. They are the 'givens'. For
example, mechanical forces are theoretical 'givens'. The universe does
not give us these 'givens'. The theorists gives them to us. They are
guessed into being.
If fundamental 'givens' were not conjured up, then theoretical
development would stop. The reason for this is that if unity cannot be
established for different patterns in effects, then we are stymied in
how to proceed unless we presume these different patterns are due to
separate, unique fundamental causes. So disunity is purposefully
introduced into fundamental theory. The causes are introduced
separately and uniquely. Their disunity is evidence of our limited
understanding.
That which remains unknown undermines understanding. If it is admitted
that 'givens' are temporary substitutes for not knowing how to show
unity, then the practice is not permanently harmful. It is when the
empirically unknown is imaginatively transformed into the
theoretically known that harm occurs. When it is decided things are
'known', then they are made permanent theoretical cornerstones.
The further development of higher level theory relies upon their
existence. Their reality becomes indispensible to the theorist. New
permanent names and units of measurement are introduced into the
equations used to formulate the theory. Either one of these steps can
introduce falsehoods. The unique units make the mathematical
equations, which are initially based upon patterns in empirical
evidence, subservient to theory. This practice artificially restricts
the usefulness of the equations. If unity exists at the fundamental
level, it is mischievously made hidden from us. This practice of
guessing at answers, no matter how well educated the guesser, is
highly prone to error.
When a physicist speaks of momentum, energy, electric charge, gravity
or any cause of change of velocity as if they have unique,
fundamental, physical presence, then they should explain how this is
known. If a physicist chooses, because of pre-existing theory or
logical inclination to guess about the nature of existence, then all
theory evolved from these guesses is also a guess. As evolved theory
it may seem to have passed stringent criteria, but as empirical
knowledge it has not. If the guesses are wrong then the theory is
wrong.
The possible scientific penalty is typified by the theory of mass. The
physical cause of the effects we attribute to 'mass' has never been
understood. Learning what mass is could suddenly change everything.
This failing is pervasive within the fundamentals of physics theory.
No one can explain physical natures for force, mass, energy, momentum,
electric charge or anything else. We know what things do, but, we do
not know why they can do it.
What we do know is they cause much more than just changes of velocity.
They are far more powerful than are the proposed theoretical
properties of a mechanical universe. Real scientific criteria requires
these theoretical guesses be replaced with real knowledge. Real
knowledge is recognizable by its applicability to the real universe. A
universe that causes changes of velocity and life and intelligence.
James A. Putnam
What are you going to do about it?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
15 Jan 2004 11:18:48 AM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" wrote:
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe.
But General Relativity is....
Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:
1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.
Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!
Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.
There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:
Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.
Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.
Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of
relativity are:
M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
15 Jan 2004 11:04:56 AM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" wrote:
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe.
[snip]
Hey stooopid,
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
"Mechanical physics" died in the 19th century. This is the 21st
century. Your watch is slow.
If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will
represent only a rudimentary, elementary level of interpretation of
the operation of the universe.
If a viable TOE is proposed, that's a viable answer. Science is about
mathematical modeling, prediction thereform, and absence of empirical
falsification. The "why" of it is left to god's folks. After 5000
years of divine knowledge thay hadn't come up with a flush toilet, pi
to more than one significant figure, or a breakfast cereal that stayed
crunchy in milk.
You are a dysfunctional whining ignorant boring...
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
[snip 70 lines of sniveling crap]
Uncle Al says, "to criticize is to volunteer."
Uncle Al volunteers a profoundly important test of physics performable
in existing apparatus.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
What have you got, git, other than a thin sour breeze of hot air?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
19 Jan 2004 11:11:57 PM |
|
|
(James A. Putnam) wrote in message news:<3b859a5b.0401142255.43973a7e@posting.google.com>...
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our
scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the
universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of
relevance to life and intelligence.
The best, most useful theory is the one that produces fundamental
unity. Our theories began without unity and continue to fail to
produce unity. The mechanical usefulness of physics knowledge derives
not from its theoretical interpretations but rather from the measure
of how well our equations adhere to natural patterns of changes of
velocity. It is these mathematically imitated patterns that cause our
equations to yield correct predictions. It is a case of mathematical
extrapolation. However, theory becomes added on and compromises the
empirical meanings of the equations. In particular, it is the
invention of theoretical units that cause damage.
Theoretical physics tries to describe the operation of the universe
using units that are invented out of theoretical need. Here is an
example of what has occurred with the units of physics. Physics
experimentation has never been able to determine the nature of any
cause of change of velocity. We proceed, in spite of this, with
choosing to give names to unique material causes that are guessed to
exist. For example, we name one of the causes as ‘electric charge'.
Where did the theory of electric charge originate? It came about
because unidentifiable quantities regularly appeared in the formula
for electric force. Since they appeared in the measurement of
electrical effects it seemed reasonable they may be representative of
the cause of these effects. Once the cause was theoretically
segregated and named we needed to be able to uniquely quantify it. We
did this by inventing new units called ‘coulombs'. Afterwards we
forget we never empirically discovered a material cause. We become so
used to the name and the units that we imagine the cause has been
proven.
For another example, it is observed there are two different patterns
of change of velocity, but physics knowledge is unable to account for
both of them by defining a single source. What should be done at this
point in order to guard against error while continuing to develop
theory? After all, we can't wait until we know all the answers before
we make use of what we do know. In a case such as this we should
temporarily work with two different imagined sources, but we must
resist the temptation to believe we now know they exist as fundamental
physical facts. We don't know what is the cause for either effect, so
we certainly do not know they are two different fundamental causes.
The invention of separate forces is an impediment to discovering a
fundamental unified cause. The more sources of force we add on, the
farther away from the correct solution we will be. The separation of
forces existing today results from this practice being repeated
throughout the development of physics. Theorists cannot unite gravity
with the other forces of physics because they theoretically segregated
it. It is treated in a manner that makes it artificially incompatible
with the other theoretical forces. More piled on theory only makes
matters worse. We just move farther and farther away from fundamental
unity.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
20 Jan 2004 12:19:14 PM |
|
|
(James A. Putnam) wrote in message news:<3b859a5b.0401192111.64f3f752@posting.google.com>...
(James A. Putnam) wrote in message news:<3b859a5b.0401142255.43973a7e@posting.google.com>...
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our
scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the
universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of
relevance to life and intelligence.
Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the
mechanical interpretation of the universe. However, this natural
limitation is made more severe for two reasons. One is their
incompleteness which, when discovered, is improved upon. Another is
our own artificial restraints which, due to prejudice, usually are
steadfastly retained as immutable truth. An example of this kind of
artificial restraint is the assignment of new unique units for
properties whose nature is unverified. These artificial units are the
one part of incorrect theory that becomes involved in the manipulation
of equalities.
Eventually the artificial constraints that result from theory being
added onto our equations will limit their range of correct
predictions. When this happens, we must review our old thoughts and
formulate new thoughts about what may be true. We must then adjust our
equations to represent the new thoughts. Mathematics is the symbolic,
mechanical restating of these thoughts. We think our new mechanical
ideas and then write them down in mathematical symbols.
The rules of mathematics help us keep our numbers and our thoughts
straight. However, if we reach a point where we can no longer give
logical reasons for the meaning of our equations, then our equations
cannot make us understand. We can still use the results for practical
purposes. We still have the numbers for predicting changes of
velocity. Nevertheless, we will not understand why they occur.
To overstate the importance of theory is to leave us vulnerable to
blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired
unreasonable and even absurd meaning. Our understanding of the
universe, beyond the minimum of at least one given cause every theory
begins with, must be based upon an understandable physical nature. It
should not be necessary and is not enlightening to imagine extra
forces or extra dimensions or extra universes.
The answers about the universe exist in the potential of human reason.
Our interpretations of our mathematical equations must be compatible
with reason. The universe gave birth to us. We are formed from its
constituents. Everything we have become is the result of their
properties. Our lives and intelligence are its ultimate achievement.
Our intelligence came from it and contains whatever understanding is
possible.
The real language of the universe is contained in human intelligence.
It is in our ability to be logical far beyond the limitations of
mathematics. It is in our ability to comprehend the universe far
beyond patterns of change of velocity. It is the source of the means
by which we can move beyond the simplistic universe of mechanical
theory. The means will show that the cause of change of velocity is
also the cause of life and intelligence.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb |
21 Jan 2004 01:04:10 AM |
|
|
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity. It reveals itself outside
of theory as incompatibility within new equations. Important equations
are made to appear impossible because of artificial units. For example
within the mks system of units:
h=keC
The equation contains four important fundamental constants. It says:
Planck's constant numerically equals Boltzmann's constant times proton
charge times the speed of light. There is no way to deduce from
current theoretical physics that these constants have any chance at
all of forming an equation. Their units just don't match. However,
these constants are very unusual numbers. They are not the simple kind
where coincidence might have a chance to occur. The fact they form an
equation challenges the credibility of their theoretical
interpretations.
For everyone who believes they understand electromagnetic radiation it
is represented by its speed. For those who think electric charge is
understood, it is represented by itself. Molecular kinetic energy and
temperature are represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's constant
represents energy. Relativity theory is represented by the speed of
light. Electromagnetic theory is represented by electric charge.
Molecular mechanics is represented by Boltzmann's constant. Planck's
constant represents quantum mechanics.
If this equation has meaning then it must be new meaning, because it
doesn't make sense in any of the theories represented. It does make
sense when it is freed from the artifacts that obscure fundamental
truth. It says each of those incompatible theories have significant
human error problems. Part of the new meaning is to show a path toward
fundamental unity.
Here is another such equation:
f=kw
For a photon, f is the force it can deliver, k is Boltzmann's
constant, and w is frequency.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
28 Jan 2004 06:11:00 PM |
|
|
(James A. Putnam) wrote in message news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience ‘mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
28 Jan 2004 07:37:25 PM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
29 Jan 2004 08:18:56 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
29 Jan 2004 11:52:49 AM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 12:26:08 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bvbh1n$gb1$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Ok if I now understand your view, then I assume your first statement
would be accurate if it said: Time is not a fundamental property of
the universe. If this does not represent your viewpoint, then it is
not clear to me. If this correctly represents your viewpoint, then we
do disagree.
I am certain that time is fundamental and abolute insofar as the
operation of the universe is concerned. Measurements of it must be
referred to the motion of matter and its measurement is relative.
However, time itself is not relative to anything else in the universe.
Time is not available for us to handle for the purpose of
experimenting with it.
We necessarily use substitute measures of time. However, the universe
keeps time with absolute precision. It does not matter, for the point
I am making, whether I am right or wrong about this. I am saying that
anyone who uses f = ma must assign units of measurement to time and
distance. These are the two indefinable units of physics measurements.
The units of mass are incorrectly accepted as a third indefinable.
That is the main point I am making. It is a very significant basic
error made early in the development of physics theory. Its effect is
pervasive. It has given rise to artificial theory. It is necessary to
correct this error in order to achieve unity.
Respectfully,
James A. Putnam
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 09:11:39 AM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401292226.66bab627@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bvbh1n$gb1$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It
is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two
properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are
neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is
available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge
is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity.
This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the
beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units
of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force
to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen
in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be
defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would
all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass
are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of
measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would
have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be
assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time.
The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for
further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable
units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units
such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and
mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance
and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this
lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of
the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may
learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of
distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and
not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest
for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Ok if I now understand your view, then I assume your first statement
would be accurate if it said: Time is not a fundamental property of
the universe. If this does not represent your viewpoint, then it is
not clear to me. If this correctly represents your viewpoint, then we
do disagree.
I am certain that time is fundamental and abolute insofar as the
operation of the universe is concerned. Measurements of it must be
referred to the motion of matter and its measurement is relative.
However, time itself is not relative to anything else in the universe.
Time is not available for us to handle for the purpose of
experimenting with it.
We necessarily use substitute measures of time. However, the universe
keeps time with absolute precision. It does not matter, for the point
I am making, whether I am right or wrong about this. I am saying that
anyone who uses f = ma must assign units of measurement to time and
distance. These are the two indefinable units of physics measurements.
The units of mass are incorrectly accepted as a third indefinable.
That is the main point I am making. It is a very significant basic
error made early in the development of physics theory. Its effect is
pervasive. It has given rise to artificial theory. It is necessary to
correct this error in order to achieve unity.
Respectfully,
James A. Putnam
That is religion.
If you think that time exist as property of empty space
than that is not science.
Also you probably believe that space has ability to limit motion of matter
to that of c speed.
That is also religion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 02:08:57 PM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401292226.66bab627@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bvbh1n$gb1$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It
is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two
properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are
neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is
available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge
is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity.
This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the
beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units
of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force
to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen
in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be
defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would
all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass
are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of
measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would
have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be
assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time.
The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for
further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable
units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units
such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and
mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance
and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this
lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of
the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may
learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of
distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and
not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest
for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Ok if I now understand your view, then I assume your first statement
would be accurate if it said: Time is not a fundamental property of
the universe. If this does not represent your viewpoint, then it is
not clear to me. If this correctly represents your viewpoint, then we
do disagree.
I am certain that time is fundamental and abolute insofar as the
operation of the universe is concerned. Measurements of it must be
referred to the motion of matter and its measurement is relative.
However, time itself is not relative to anything else in the universe.
Time is not available for us to handle for the purpose of
experimenting with it.
We necessarily use substitute measures of time. However, the universe
keeps time with absolute precision. It does not matter, for the point
I am making, whether I am right or wrong about this. I am saying that
anyone who uses f = ma must assign units of measurement to time and
distance. These are the two indefinable units of physics measurements.
The units of mass are incorrectly accepted as a third indefinable.
That is the main point I am making. It is a very significant basic
error made early in the development of physics theory. Its effect is
pervasive. It has given rise to artificial theory. It is necessary to
correct this error in order to achieve unity.
Respectfully,
James A. Putnam
That is religion.
If you think that time exist as property of empty space
than that is not science.
Also you probably believe that space has ability to limit motion of matter
to that of c speed.
That is also religion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 07:15:33 AM |
|
|
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bvbh1n$gb1$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity. This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time. The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Say Mathew,
When will your FTL radios be on the shelves of a store near me?
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 09:14:28 AM |
|
|
"Double-A" <double-a@hush.com> wrote in message
news:79094630.0401300515.13b7cd98@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bvbh1n$gb1$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401290618.7cdd846@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bv9nst$7qf$1@news.onet.pl>...
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
james@newphysicstheory.com (James A. Putnam) wrote in message
news:<3b859a5b.0401202304.5fd11d37@posting.google.com>...
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It
is
revealed within theory by preventing unity.
Distance and time are fundamental to our learning experience. We
measure distance in space and duration in time. These two
properties
of the universe are measured directly. The measurements are
neither
absolute space nor absolute time. Neither space nor time is
available
to be handled for experimentation. However, mechanical knowledge
is
delivered via changes of velocity. We receive information of the
operation of the universe filtered through changes of velocity.
This
limitation of direct knowledge caused difficulty from the
beginning of
physics theory. In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units
of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
It is known for a constant cause of force that changes of velocity
vary from object to object. This is evidence matter resists force
to
varying degrees. This property of resistance to force is given the
name of convenience 'mass'. It is not known why matter can resist
force. There is no cause for this property that can be directly
observed. It is only known by its effect, and its effect is seen
in
changes of velocity. We learn about mass by measurements that rely
upon units of distance and time. If the units of mass could be
defined
using units of distance and time, then the units that follow would
all
have clear meaning.
However, in the equation f = ma the two properties force and mass
are
known only indirectly. Since there are two properties that are
measured indirectly, we cannot derive both their units of
measurement
using this equation. It was determined either force or mass would
have
to be accepted as being indefinable. Mass was chosen to be
assigned
invented units accepted on an equal par with distance and time.
The
units of force could then be defined as consisting of kilograms,
meters and seconds in the mks system.
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for
further
theoretical development. The result of having three indefinable
units
is that all units derived from them lack a direct relationship to
distance and time. The invention of a third indefinable unit of
measurement represents a theoretical dead end instituted at the
beginning of theory. Units must match, however, invented units
such as
is the case for mass cause artificial mismatches.
If we are to know when units of measurement truly match and
mismatch,
then we must first learn their natural relationships to distance
and
time. The theoretical equations that have been developed using
invented units will not be exactly same as those that could be
developed using naturally defined units. In order to change this
lack
of connection between force and mass and distance and time, it is
necessary to define the units of both force and mass in terms of
the
units of distance and time. This can and must be done, so we may
learn
the nature of fundamental unity.
James A. Putnam
Wrong!
Time does not exist as an entity of space.
And what exist is motion of matter in space.
We can only measure distance as a ratio of size.
We can only measure time as ratio of motion.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
I do not disagree with what you have said in your short statements.
What I have said is correct. If you believe you are saying something
fundamentally different, then perhaps you should elaborate more. I am
not defining space or time. I am only discussing their measurements.
The point of the message is that the units of measurement of mass are
arbitrariy assigned. This act disassociates all units that are derived
using those of mass from empirical understanding. This practice of
arbitrarily assigning theoretical units becomes embedded into the
equations. The equations cannot then be expected to accurately define
the, as yet unknown, fundamental operation of the universe. Our
present mathematical equations mimmick the operation of the universe,
they do not define it.
James A. Putnam
Here you are:
Since the universe is nothing else but motion of matter in space
than the only true fundamental measurement is the measurement of
distance
between two point that are part of matter.
So any measurements can be expressed in units of distance and since all
measurements are relative than
we need reference body that is the size unit reference.
Finally, mathematics is the tool for modeling of motion of matter and
not
for creation of new entities matter
nor for new properties of matter.
Modeling entities or properties of matter that are invented by
mathematicians
is a science fiction.
Postulating is a fraud.
Experimenting and discovering is the only way of advancing in our quest
for
knowledge about the universe.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Say Mathew,
When will your FTL radios be on the shelves of a store near me?
Double-A
I do not intend to make FTL radios.
I am building radio transmitter that will propagate radio waves with FTL
propagation speed.
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 07:56:35 AM |
|
|
Double-A wrote:
Say Mathew,
When will your FTL radios be on the shelves of a store near me?
Soon I hope. There are some -Amos 'n Andy- broadcasts I missed the first
time.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
29 Jan 2004 03:45:44 PM |
|
|
"James A. Putnam" <james@newphysicstheory.com> wrote in message
news:3b859a5b.0401281611.6f6dbdb8@posting.google.com...
[snio]
In the equation f = ma only acceleration has units of
distance and time. The difficulty that arises is how to determine
units for force and mass.
There is no difficulty. Units for thelatter have been in existence since
the 17th century. Units for the former have been in existence for thousands
of years.
[snip]
So, there are three indefinable units used as the basis for further
theoretical development.
What on earth do you think have been used as units up to now, if they have
not been defined?
The rest of your post is at least equally infantile and boring, so I snip it
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Putnam" |
|
| Title: Re: Theoretical Physics On A Limb |
30 Jan 2004 12:15:58 PM |
|
|
[I am posting a reproduction of a few messages already posted in
another thread. They were not attached to this thread because of a
typo in the subject heading. I will no longer add to the other thread.
There were responses by others that may be viewed in the other thread.
That thread is: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb.]
Message 1
Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is
not even the beginning of understanding. It is a facade that separates
us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our
scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the
universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of
relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics only offers imagined
possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns
found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.
If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will
represent only a rudimentary, elementary level of interpretation of
the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virture of
its being mechanical. A physics theory-of-everything would not be a
theory of everything. It would only represent an attempt to unite
mechanical knowledge. The most important effects of the universe would
not be included. Mechanical unity will not explain life and
intelligence.
Not only does physics theory fail to describe the natures of these
crucial properties, it even fails to describe the natures of
mechanical properties. The properties offered by theoretical physics
are magically bestowed upon matter. They are the 'givens'. For
example, mechanical forces are theoretical 'givens'. The universe does
not give us these 'givens'. The theorists gives them to us. They are
guessed into being.
If fundamental 'givens' were not conjured up, then theoretical
development would stop. The reason for this is that if unity cannot be
established for different patterns in effects, then we are stymied in
how to proceed unless we presume these different patterns are due to
separate, unique fundamental causes. So disunity is purposefully
introduced into fundamental theory. The causes are introduced
separately and uniquely. Their disunity is evidence of our limited
understanding.
That which remains unknown undermines understanding. If it is admitted
that 'givens' are temporary substitutes for not knowing how to show
unity, then the practice is not permanently harmful. It is when the
empirically unknown is imaginatively transformed into the
theoretically known that harm occurs. When it is decided things are
'known', then they are made permanent theoretical cornerstones.
The further development of higher level theory relies upon their
existence. Their reality becomes indispensible to the theorist. New
permanent names and units of measurement are introduced into the
equations used to formulate the theory. Either one of these steps can
introduce falsehoods. The unique units make the mathematical
equations, which are initially based upon patterns in empirical
evidence, subservient to theory. This practice artificially restricts
the usefulness of the equations. If unity exists at the fundamental
level, it is mischievously made hidden from us. This practice of
guessing at answers, no matter how well educated the guesser, is
highly prone to error.
When a physicist speaks of momentum, energy, electric charge, gravity
or any cause of change of velocity as if they have unique,
fundamental, physical presence, then they should explain how this is
known. If a physicist chooses, because of pre-existing theory or
logical inclination to guess about the nature of existence, then all
theory evolved from these guesses is also a guess. As evolved theory
it may seem to have passed stringent criteria, but as empirical
knowledge it has not. If the guesses are wrong then the theory is
wrong.
The possible scientific penalty is typified by the theory of mass. The
physical cause of the effects we attribute to 'mass' has never been
understood. Learning what mass is could suddenly change everything.
This failing is pervasive within the fundamentals of physics theory.
No one can explain physical natures for force, mass, energy, momentum,
electric charge or anything else. We know what things do, but, we do
not know why they can do it.
What we do know is they cause much more than just changes of velocity.
They are far more powerful than are the proposed theoretical
properties of a mechanical universe. Real scientific criteria requires
these theoretical guesses be replaced with real knowledge. Real
knowledge is recognizable by its applicability to the real universe. A
universe that causes changes of velocity and life and intelligence.
Message 2
The best, most useful theory is the one that produces fundamental
unity. Our theories began without unity and continue to fail to
produce unity. The mechanical usefulness of physics knowledge derives
not from its theoretical interpretations but rather from the measure
of how well our equations adhere to natural patterns of changes of
velocity. It is these mathematically imitated patterns that cause our
equations to yield correct predictions. It is a case of mathematical
extrapolation. However, theory becomes added on and compromises the
empirical meanings of the equations. In particular, it is the
invention of theoretical units that cause damage.
Theoretical physics tries to describe the operation of the universe
using units that are invented out of theoretical need. Here is an
example of what has occurred with the units of physics. Physics
experimentation has never been able to determine the nature of any
cause of change of velocity. We proceed, in spite of this, with
choosing to give names to unique material causes that are guessed to
exist. For example, we name one of the causes as ‘electric charge'.
Where did the theory of electric charge originate? It came about
because unidentifiable quantities regularly appeared in the formula
for electric force. Since they appeared in the measurement of
electrical effects it seemed reasonable they may be representative of
the cause of these effects. Once the cause was theoretically
segregated and named we needed to be able to uniquely quantify it. We
did this by inventing new units called ‘coulombs'. Afterwards we
forget we never empirically discovered a material cause. We become so
used to the name and the units that we imagine the cause has been
proven.
For another example, it is observed there are two different patterns
of change of velocity, but physics knowledge is unable to account for
both of them by defining a single source. What should be done at this
point in order to guard against error while continuing to develop
theory? After all, we can't wait until we know all the answers before
we make use of what we do know. In a case such as this we should
temporarily work with two different imagined sources, but we must
resist the temptation to believe we now know they exist as fundamental
physical facts. We don't know what is the cause for either effect, so
we certainly do not know they are two different fundamental causes.
The invention of separate forces is an impediment to discovering a
fundamental unified cause. The more sources of force we add on, the
farther away from the correct solution we will be. The separation of
forces existing today results from this practice being repeated
throughout the development of physics. Theorists cannot unite gravity
with the other forces of physics because they theoretically segregated
it. It is treated in a manner that makes it artificially incompatible
with the other theoretical forces. More piled on theory only makes
matters worse. We just move farther and farther away from fundamental
unity.
Message 3
Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the
mechanical interpretation of the universe. However, this natural
limitation is made more severe for two reasons. One is their
incompleteness which, when discovered, is improved upon. Another is
our own artificial restraints which, due to prejudice, usually are
steadfastly retained as immutable truth. An example of this kind of
artificial restraint is the assignment of new unique units for
properties whose nature is unverified. These artificial units are the
one part of incorrect theory that becomes involved in the manipulation
of equalities.
Eventually the artificial constraints that result from theory being
added onto our equations will limit their range of correct
predictions. When this happens, we must review our old thoughts and
formulate new thoughts about what may be true. We must then adjust our
equations to represent the new thoughts. Mathematics is the symbolic,
mechanical restating of these thoughts. We think our new mechanical
ideas and then write them down in mathematical symbols.
The rules of mathematics help us keep our numbers and our thoughts
straight. However, if we reach a point where we can no longer give
logical reasons for the meaning of our equations, then our equations
cannot make us understand. We can still use the results for practical
purposes. We still have the numbers for predicting changes of
velocity. Nevertheless, we will not understand why they occur.
To overstate the importance of theory is to leave us vulnerable to
blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired
unreasonable and even absurd meaning. Our understanding of the
universe, beyond the minimum of at least one given cause every theory
begins with, must be based upon an understandable physical nature. It
should not be necessary and is not enlightening to imagine extra
forces or extra dimensions or extra universes.
The answers about the universe exist in the potential of human reason.
Our interpretations of our mathematical equations must be compatible
with reason. The universe gave birth to us. We are formed from its
constituents. Everything we have become is the result of their
properties. Our lives and intelligence are its ultimate achievement.
Our intelligence came from it and contains whatever understanding is
possible.
The real language of the universe is contained in human intelligence.
It is in our ability to be logical far beyond the limitations of
mathematics. It is in our ability to comprehend the universe far
beyond patterns of change of velocity. It is the source of the means
by which we can move beyond the simplistic universe of mechanical
theory. The means will show that the cause of change of velocity is
also the cause of life and intelligence.
Message 4
How is the problem of artificial theoretical units revealed? It is
revealed within theory by preventing unity. It reveals itself outside
of theory as incompatibility within new equations. Important equations
are made to appear impossible because of artificial units. For example
within the mks system of units:
h=keC
The equation contains four important fundamental constants. It says:
Planck's constant numerically equals Boltz | | | | | |
