An empirical approach to understanding electric charge

[ja...@jamesputnam.com]

In my thread about An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Empirical
Evidence, I made this statement:

>Electric charge has no more effect than
> does time. The reason I say this is that: There is no such thing as
> electric charge. There is certainly a universal constant of great
> importance that we call 'electric charge'. What is it that that
> universal constant represents? My answer is: Electric charge is a
> measure of time. It is a universally constant measure of an increment
> of time that is a property resulting from photonic activity. Every
> photon in every position at every time in the unvierse tells us about
> this increment of time. A simple empirical indication of this is that:
> The time for the speed of light to cross the radius of the hydrogen
> atom is of the same magnitude as is that of electric charge.

Fred questioned: "How so?"

Good question because it appears to deny the existence of something
that is obviously responsible for electro-magnetic effects. Since the
approach is intended to be strictly empirical, then the effects we
call electro-magnetism are certainly recognized as real. It is the
cause that is in question by me.

The premise is that all properties whose existence is inferred from
empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is that
evidence. The two units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.
All other properties, both those clearly inferred and those imagined
to exist must be expressible in combinations of the two units meters
and seconds. Therefore, when the theorist decides that there is a
property of electric charge, that property, along with all others,
must be expressible in terms of meters and/or seconds.

That is the most empirical path to follow for interpreting empirical
evidence. It keeps the theorist from inserting their guesses into
theory and makes it imperative that unanswered questions cannot be
left behind. In other words, the theorist cannot invent properties for
the purpose of moving forward with their theory in the face of the
unknown. The unknown cannot be long tolerated if we are to truly
understand the nature of the universe.

I did give a single example above about the time required for light to
travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. This could be just an
interesting coincidence. I don't think that it is. Here is a link to a
paper I wrote that gives an indication of how far I have been able to
pursue this line of thought:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Putnam_James_Putnam_Essay_A.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9.

It is not the existence of electromagnetism that is being questioned,
it is the theoretical property called electric charge that is being
questioned. A second reason for questioning its existence as
theoretically described is that the empirical approach that I am
attempting to develop allows for only one cause for all effects. The
cause for all effects cannot be electric charge as currently described
by theoretical physics. Therefore, if the single cause for all effects
is not electric charge, then, the theory of electric charge is open to
question. At least this is so in this particular empirical approach to
interpreting empirical evidence.

James

[xray4abc]

On Nov 20, 1:54 pm, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:
> In my thread about An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Empirical
> Evidence, I made this statement:
>
> >Electric charge has no more effect than
> > does time. The reason I say this is that: There is no such thing as
> > electric charge. There is certainly a universal constant of great
> > importance that we call 'electric charge'. What is it that that
> > universal constant represents? My answer is: Electric charge is a
> > measure of time. It is a universally constant measure of an increment
> > of time that is a property resulting from photonic activity. Every
> > photon in every position at every time in the unvierse tells us about
> > this increment of time. A simple empirical indication of this is that:
> > The time for the speed of light to cross the radius of the hydrogen
> > atom is of the same magnitude as is that of electric charge.
>
> Fred questioned: "How so?"

I would ask it as well. How can be be 2 totally different physical
quantities of the same magnitude?
Or, can they be compared at all?

>
> Good question because it appears to deny the existence of something
> that is obviously responsible for electro-magnetic effects. Since the
> approach is intended to be strictly empirical, then the effects we
> call electro-magnetism are certainly recognized as real. It is the
> cause that is in question by me.
>
> The premise is that all properties whose existence is inferred from
> empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is that
> evidence. The two units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.
> All other properties, both those clearly inferred and those imagined
> to exist must be expressible in combinations of the two units meters
> and seconds. Therefore, when the theorist decides that there is a
> property of electric charge, that property, along with all others,
> must be expressible in terms of meters and/or seconds.

If one can define a unit charge and compare it experimentally
with other charges then it is not something decided by theorists.
About the same thing is with mass.

>
> That is the most empirical path to follow for interpreting empirical
> evidence. It keeps the theorist from inserting their guesses into
> theory and makes it imperative that unanswered questions cannot be
> left behind. In other words, the theorist cannot invent properties for
> the purpose of moving forward with their theory in the face of the
> unknown. The unknown cannot be long tolerated if we are to truly
> understand the nature of the universe.
>
> I did give a single example above about the time required for light to
> travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. This could be just an
> interesting coincidence. I don't think that it is. Here is a link to a
> paper I wrote that gives an indication of how far I have been able to

> pursue this line of thought:http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Putnam_James_Putnam_Essay_A.....

>
> It is not the existence of electromagnetism that is being questioned,
> it is the theoretical property called electric charge that is being
> questioned. A second reason for questioning its existence as
> theoretically described is that the empirical approach that I am
> attempting to develop allows for only one cause for all effects. The
> cause for all effects cannot be electric charge as currently described
> by theoretical physics. Therefore, if the single cause for all effects
> is not electric charge, then, the theory of electric charge is open to
> question.

It certainly is. The problem is that seemingly there
is not enough new data to develop a new picture.

> At least this is so in this particular empirical approach to
> interpreting empirical evidence.
>
> James

Regards, Laszlo Lemhenyi

[ja...@jamesputnam.com]

On Nov 21, 7:32 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:54 pm, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > In my thread about An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Empirical
> > Evidence, I made this statement:
>
> > >Electric charge has no more effect than
> > > does time. The reason I say this is that: There is no such thing as
> > > electric charge. There is certainly a universal constant of great
> > > importance that we call 'electric charge'. What is it that that
> > > universal constant represents? My answer is: Electric charge is a
> > > measure of time. It is a universally constant measure of an increment
> > > of time that is a property resulting from photonic activity. Every
> > > photon in every position at every time in the unvierse tells us about
> > > this increment of time. A simple empirical indication of this is that:
> > > The time for the speed of light to cross the radius of the hydrogen
> > > atom is of the same magnitude as is that of electric charge.
>
> > Fred questioned: "How so?"
>
> I would ask it as well. How can be be 2 totally different physical
> quantities of the same magnitude?
> Or, can they be compared at all?
>

My point is that they are not two totally different physical
properties. The idea that they are different was a theoretical choice.
That choice was put into equations, it was not derived from the
equations. So, I gave this example as a starting point for considering
that they represent the same property. Either the apparent coincidence
fosters interest or it does not. However, I emphasize that deciding
that the two unidentified quantities in Coulomb's equation as the
cause of electric force was a guess. Attaching a name to them and,
even more so, the units of Coulombs because of that act cemented that
guess into the equations from then on.

>
> > Good question because it appears to deny the existence of something
> > that is obviously responsible for electro-magnetic effects. Since the
> > approach is intended to be strictly empirical, then the effects we
> > call electro-magnetism are certainly recognized as real. It is the
> > cause that is in question by me.
>
> > The premise is that all properties whose existence is inferred from
> > empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is that
> > evidence. The two units of empirical evidence are meters and seconds.
> > All other properties, both those clearly inferred and those imagined
> > to exist must be expressible in combinations of the two units meters
> > and seconds. Therefore, when the theorist decides that there is a
> > property of electric charge, that property, along with all others,
> > must be expressible in terms of meters and/or seconds.
>
>  If one can define a unit charge and compare it experimentally
> with other charges then it is not something decided by theorists.
> About the same thing is with mass.
>

Comparing what one defines as a unit charge with other charges sounds
to me like a conformation that theorists decided upon the existence of
charge. My conclusion is that the concept of charge is invented. In
any case, it has no place to share with a single cause for all
effects. So, I think that what is needed is to show success in
removing theory and replacing it with an empirical approach that
assumes only one cause. The reason for bothering to do this is to
force unanswered questions to be answered and to prevent theorists
from injecting their imaginative ideas onto the equations of physics.

>
> > That is the most empirical path to follow for interpreting empirical
> > evidence. It keeps the theorist from inserting their guesses into
> > theory and makes it imperative that unanswered questions cannot be
> > left behind. In other words, the theorist cannot invent properties for
> > the purpose of moving forward with their theory in the face of the
> > unknown. The unknown cannot be long tolerated if we are to truly
> > understand the nature of the universe.
>
> > I did give a single example above about the time required for light to
> > travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. This could be just an
> > interesting coincidence. I don't think that it is. Here is a link to a
> > paper I wrote that gives an indication of how far I have been able to
> > pursue this line of thought:http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Putnam_James_Putnam_Essay_A.....
>
> > It is not the existence of electromagnetism that is being questioned,
> > it is the theoretical property called electric charge that is being
> > questioned. A second reason for questioning its existence as
> > theoretically described is that the empirical approach that I am
> > attempting to develop allows for only one cause for all effects. The
> > cause for all effects cannot be electric charge as currently described
> > by theoretical physics. Therefore, if the single cause for all effects
> > is not electric charge, then, the theory of electric charge is open to
> > question.
>
> It certainly is. The problem is that seemingly there
> is not enough new data to develop a new picture.
>

I don't think the data has anything to tell us the will easily free us
from deception. The data fits with theory because theory was developed
to fit data. I think that the true justification for pursuing this
empirical approach is to see what the empirical evidence might tell us
once it is freed from the prejudices of theorists. The theorists do
approach the interpretation of data with preconceptions. I think they
also, unfortunately, have chosen to end their investigation too early
by guessing that they had reached enough of an end to invent a new
cause or property.

>
> > At least this is so in this particular empirical approach to
> > interpreting empirical evidence.
>

Here is the benefit that I find results from this approach: New
equations are made possible. Those equations were prevented from being
formed because of the inability to match units. The units in question
contained some invented units that prevented unit matching when it
should have been possible. Remove the invented, unnecessary units and
new unifying equations become possible.
>
> > James
>
> Regards, Laszlo Lemhenyi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Nov 20, 10:54 am, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:
> In my thread about An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Empirical
> Evidence, I made this statement:
>
> >Electric charge has no more effect than
> > does time. The reason I say this is that: There is no such thing as
> > electric charge. There is certainly a universal constant of great
> > importance that we call 'electric charge'.

Agreed.
I would write that as,
(1) Speed is relative, the speed of light is invariant.
(2) Charge is relative, the fundamental charge is invariant.

I'm using each as an analog to the other in (1) and (2).
((I think it was Fred who wrote, you need 2 hands to clap:-))

>What is it that that
> > universal constant represents? My answer is: Electric charge is a
> > measure of time.

In GR mass is often expressed in length units which intro convert
to time units, but one needs to keep in mind a charge is invariant,
and time is relative.
In a transform equation time is a 1st rank tensor, but 'e' is a
scalar.
However, lengths perpendicular to motion are invariant,as the
contraction
of length due to the Lorentz Transform only occurs in the direction of
3D relative motion.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

[James Putnam]

To readers who might wonder about the purpose of this thread:

While following the approach I have taken, I came to a point where
electric charge had to be accounted for. It was the hardest thing for
me to let go of. However, electromagnetic effects, it seems, do not
need electric charge for their cause. The concept of this approach
requires doing away with theory. A better way of saying that is to
stick to interpreting empirical evidence for what it tells us without
injecting imagination. Since f=ma, I think it is reasonable to think
that there might be just one single cause for all effects. Effects
result from the f in f=ma. While we cannot know what cause is, we can
give it a name and identity. What I have found to be the best
candidate for the single cause is the property of light. The speed of
light is a variable. The measurement of the speed of light locally is
not a variable. Measuring as a constant and being a constant are not
necessarily the same thing.

The main point of this message is to make clear that if one is to
evaluate it then one must not allow theory to be their guide. I view
theory as a collection of names of properties and their assigned,
usually invented, units of measurment. All of these properties are
assigned to the equations that are modeled to fit the patterns of
changes of velocity of objects that form empirical evidence. They do
not arise from those equations. they are assigned to them. The
equations, such as f=ma begin as empirical equations. They accurately
represent what is observed in the patterns of empirical evidence. In
the case of f=ma it loses its empirical nature and becomes a tool of
the theorist when mass, it could have been force, was declared, for
unempirical reasons, to be an indefinable property joining the status
of distance and time.

Only distance and time are involved in relating empirical evidence to
us. The addition of mass to their ranks was the beginning of allowing
theory to invade the equations and turn them into tools of the
theorist. The downside of this occurence was that every invented
property, every invented unit interferes with what would have occured
naturally if the equations had been allowed to remain empirical
equations. The difference is that theory interferes with unity.
Invented units prevent unifying equations from being formed. Units
must match. Invented units must also follow that rule, but, they are
not real. They corrupt the equations to the result that disunity
becomes the rule. They make extraordinary efforts necessary such that
the mathematics and the theory becomes unnecessarily complex and even
misleading. Strange math and strange contrived properties become
necessary to invent and inject into theoretical physics. One of the
reason this occurs is that, since disunity was incorporated into
theory right from its start, extraordinary theory is required to find
some way of gluing theory back together in an effort to return it to
some semblance of unity. If those actions were not dictated by the
empirical forms of equations, then they should have been avoided and
should now be expunged. That is what I think.

James

[James Putnam]

Hi Ken,

On Nov 22, 11:30 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:54 am, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:
>
> > In my thread about An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Empirical
> > Evidence, I made this statement:
>
> > >Electric charge has no more effect than
> > > does time. The reason I say this is that: There is no such thing as
> > > electric charge. There is certainly a universal constant of great
> > > importance that we call 'electric charge'.
>
> Agreed.
> I would write that as,
> (1) Speed is relative, the speed of light is invariant.
> (2) Charge is relative, the fundamental charge is invariant.
>

Actually my meaning was that there is no such thing as electric
charge. The universal constant that we call electric charge is not
about charge. It is not even about electromagnetic effects. It is
rather a fundamentally constant incremental measurement of time that
is the same everywhere in the universe. I don't expect agreement on
this. It is what I have determined by removing theory and evaluating
empirical evidence without theory. What I offer in support of this
claim quite a bit of work with many good results. Whatever, the truth
may be, no one has ever isolated either space or time for the purpose
experiementing on them. Empirical evidence is about changes of
velocity of objects. Without the intervention of theory, time and
space are absolute.

>
> I'm using each as an analog to the other in (1) and (2).
> ((I think it was Fred who wrote, you need 2 hands to clap:-))
>
> >What is it that that
> > > universal constant represents? My answer is: Electric charge is a
> > > measure of time.
>
> In GR mass is often expressed in length units which intro convert
> to time units, but one needs to keep in mind a charge is invariant,
> and time is relative.
> In a transform equation time is a 1st rank tensor, but 'e' is a
> scalar.
> However, lengths perpendicular to motion are invariant,as the
> contraction
> of length due to the Lorentz Transform only occurs in the direction of
> 3D relative motion.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
>

As wonderful as theoretical physics has performed, theory does not
matter. What matters in this approach is to learn only what empirical
evidence has to offer us. So far the results say that time is absolute
and that the closest we can come to demonstrating that is to discover
a universally constant measure of time. The role is fulfilled by the
universal constant 'electric charge'.

Length does contract. It does so because of change in the speed of
light. Size results from light. I gave an example of a calculation
about the time it takes for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen
atom. That calculation yielded a magnitude equal to that of electric
charge. That is because it always takes the same increment of time to
make that trip. If the speed of light slowed locally, then for the
speed of light to still always measure locally as the same constant,
the length of the radius must shrink. There is more to this and it
involves a different kind of treatment for photons. It includes
modeling photons as if they had length. Again, i do not expect
agreement. My main point i wish to stress is that the approach that I
have been taking cannot be evaluated by comparing it to theory.

James

[xray4abc]

On Nov 21, 10:37 pm, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:

snip

> > > > The time for the speed of light to cross the radius of the hydrogen
> > > > atom is of the same magnitude as is that of electric charge.

snip

> My point is that they are not two totally different physical
> properties. The idea that they are different was a theoretical choice.
> That choice was put into equations, it was not derived from the
> equations. So, I gave this example as a starting point for considering
> that they represent the same property. Either the apparent coincidence
> fosters interest or it does not. However, I emphasize that deciding
> that the two unidentified quantities in Coulomb's equation as the
> cause of electric force was a guess. Attaching a name to them and,
> even more so, the units of Coulombs because of that act cemented that
> guess into the equations from then on.

snip

> > > It is not the existence of electromagnetism that is being questioned,
> > > it is the theoretical property called electric charge that is being
> > > questioned. A second reason for questioning its existence as
> > > theoretically described is that the empirical approach that I am
> > > attempting to develop allows for only one cause for all effects. The
> > > cause for all effects cannot be electric charge as currently described
> > > by theoretical physics. Therefore, if the single cause for all effects
> > > is not electric charge, then, the theory of electric charge is open to
> > > question.

snip

> > > James
Well, I wish you luck on this! (You need it!)
>From my part I can't see any good coming from it but headache.
You want to rewrite all the physics we know, and this
is too much and I do not think that it is necessary.
I do agree that there could be a better picture of issues
related to electric charges and I am working on it,
just for myself for now.
One of the ideas I follow is, that an atomic system , like
the hydrogen atom, has some constraints which make it
a resonant system. It must be some internal mechanism
, similar to common electromagnetic LC oscillators,
where the energy of the system stays unaltered
and without the need of emitting radiations.
This mechanism was not discovered
(at least I do not know about it) and after
circumventing the need for it by inventing quantum
mechanics, was not really searched any more.
(There are, though, some guys working on
similar ideas lately)
The discovery of this mechanism could make
,probably, quantum mechanics a chapter of
statistical electrodynamics.
(There is already some work being done in
this direction, at Caltech if I'm not wrong).
Regards, Laszlo Lemhenyi

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, xray4abc <lemhen...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:37 pm, ja...@jamesputnam.com wrote:

...

> I do agree that there could be a better picture of issues
> related to electric charges and I am working on it,
> just for myself for now.
> One of the ideas I follow is, that an atomic system , like
> the hydrogen atom, has some constraints which make it
> a resonant system. It must be some internal mechanism
> , similar to common electromagnetic LC oscillators,
> where the energy of the system stays unaltered
> and without the need of emitting radiations.
> This mechanism was not discovered
> (at least I do not know about it) and after
> circumventing the need for it by inventing quantum
> mechanics, was not really searched any more.
> (There are, though, some guys working on
> similar ideas lately)
> The discovery of this mechanism could make
> ,probably, quantum mechanics a chapter of
> statistical electrodynamics.
> (There is already some work being done in
> this direction, at Caltech if I'm not wrong).
> Regards, Laszlo Lemhenyi

With ya Laszlo!
The 2 modes for an electron (IMO) are,
1)stable

2)annihilate ((annihilate, sounds like some chemical
compound that causes annilation)).

(2) happens when an e- and e+ do the annihilation.
((Do THE ANNIHILatio, but don't MoM catch ya)).

(e-) + (e+) ~~~>> 2 gammas.

(2) is a hard test.
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker

[James Putnam]

xray4abc

>
> Well, I wish you luck on this! (You need it!)>From my part I can't see any good coming from it but headache.
>
> You want to rewrite all the physics we know, and this
> is too much and I do not think that it is necessary.
> I do agree that there could be a better picture of issues
> related to electric charges and I am working on it,
> just for myself for now.
> One of the ideas I follow is, that an atomic system , like
> the hydrogen atom, has some constraints which make it
> a resonant system. It must be some internal mechanism
> , similar to common electromagnetic LC oscillators,
> where the energy of the system stays unaltered
> and without the need of emitting radiations.
> This mechanism was not discovered
> (at least I do not know about it) and after
> circumventing the need for it by inventing quantum
> mechanics, was not really searched any more.
> (There are, though, some guys working on
> similar ideas lately)
> The discovery of this mechanism could make
> ,probably, quantum mechanics a chapter of
> statistical electrodynamics.
> (There is already some work being done in
> this direction, at Caltech if I'm not wrong).
> Regards, Laszlo Lemhenyi

When you have more to add to this, please share it here. Thank you.

As to my potential for a headache, I haven't had one. However, so far
as I know, I also remain alone in my quest. It does seem that that
might be cause for some malady :). Good luck to you in your work.

James

[James Putnam]

This message has to do with an important portion of what is needed to
adopt the practice of interpreting empirical evidence in an empirical
way. Next to defining mass as the inverse of acceleration, is the need
to remove electric charge as a fundamental cause. The magnitude and
universally constant importance of electric charge does not go away.
Nor, do the effects attributed to it. The effects clearly stay and
must be accounted for. But first, it is necessary to show some
indication of what happens theoretically when electric charge is no
more: http://newphysicstheory.com/Fine_Structure_Constant_Electric_Permittivity.pdf.

James

[Aetherist]

A few observations,

1. You present no foundation for assuming mass is inverse acceleration

2. You present no basis for charge as a time. Specifically, since
permittivity is arbitrarily defined in the MKS system one can set
charge to anything they wish. However, further assuming that ec is
has anything to do with hydrogen is a stretch that is also without
any defined foundation.

3. The rest seems to be circular reasoning based upon the above...

I think Wolfgang Pauli summarized such presentations best as 'not even
wrong'.

[James Putnam]

On Dec 10, 4:28 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:01:34 CST, James Putnam <ja...@jamesputnam.com> wrote:
> >This message has to do with an important portion of what is needed to
> >adopt the practice of interpreting empirical evidence in an empirical
> >way. Next to defining mass as the inverse of acceleration, is the need
> >to remove electric charge as a fundamental cause. The magnitude and
> >universally constant importance of electric charge does not go away.
> >Nor, do the effects attributed to it. The effects clearly stay and
> >must be accounted for. But first, it is necessary to show some
> >indication of what happens theoretically when electric charge is no

> >more:http://newphysicstheory.com/Fine_Structure_Constant_Electric_Permitti....

>
> >James
>
> A few observations,
>
> 1.  You present no foundation for assuming mass is inverse acceleration
>
> 2.  You present no basis for charge as a time.  Specifically, since
>     permittivity is arbitrarily defined in the MKS system one can set
>     charge to anything they wish.  However, further assuming that ec is
>     has anything to do with hydrogen is a stretch that is also without
>     any defined foundation.
>
> 3.  The rest seems to be circular reasoning based upon the above...
>
> I think Wolfgang Pauli summarized such presentations best as 'not even
> wrong'.

I do present a foundation for defining maass instead of indefining it.

I did give a limited view on why charge is really a measure of time.
There are more results.Your affinity to disregard whatever I say will
run thin I think. I have more to say.

I prefer my reasoning to your attempts to pile on more theory based
upon theory until theory becomes so unmanageable that pilling on
theory justifies piling on theory. I remove theory right from the
start. I think that your acceptanceof an empirically unjustifiable
action to arbitrarily, out of ignorance, making mass an indefinable
property joining time and space is evidence of personal preference as
opposed to empirical knowledge. Your messages do not convey
justifications. They convey a like of theory.

James

[James Putnam]

It is helpfull, on the part of readers, to understand that this thread
is not about theory. It is a demonstration of what can happen when
theory is discarded. This does not mean that I am correct. It does
mean that theorists may not be correct. It means that good results are
possible, maybe even much better, without theory being imposed upon
the equations that first are formed to model the patterns observed in
changes of velocity. What happens to them afterwards does matter. The
intervention of theorists does change things in ways that were not
dictated by the empirical evidence. The choice to make mass an
indefinable property was a theoretical choice. So was the
interpretation of the two mysterious quantities that showed up in
Coulomb's equation. It was guessed, as part of theory, that those
mysterious quantities represented cause. The effects interpreted as
being due to electric charge can be explained otherwise without
resorting to theory. That is what this thread is about.

James

[Aetherist]

No, I meant what I said, you have NO basis for saying mass is
sec^2/m. The only thing I see is a personal desire to say it is.

Lets take item #1, mathematically we havs speed defined as:

s = dx/dt

or, formally, the first derivative of distance wrt to time

then acceleration is,

a = ds/dt = d^x/dt^2

Or, formally, the second derivative wrt to time

OK, now provide us a clear mathematical and physical basis for
claiming that mass is, physically, the inverse of a second
derivative.

We'll simply start there...

[James Putnam]

> We'll simply start there...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes I do have clear basis. The present circumstance is one of no
basis. The clear basis that I have is that: All properties who's

existence is inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible in

the same terms as is that evidence. If one does not follow this
restriction, the only other choice is to guess about how one might
express the nature of a property. Guessing is equivalent to inventing.
You have accepted invention while I rely directly upon empirical
evidence.

Mass is the inverse of an acceleration. There were other choices, but
this is the one that the results support best. The acceleration
represented by inverse mass is the acceleration of the single cause
for all effects. A portion of its acceleration is traded off as
acceleration of an object. When the object slows its acceleration
returns to the original cause. The original cause speeds up and slows
down in opposite manner from the behavior of objects. It is a matter
of conservation of acceleration. No other causes need be invented. You
like inventing. I like finding. I have not yet disclosed the nature of
the single cause. It is presently known but not recognized as such.

The reason I do not bother others with this answer is that it would
receive the kind of recption that you insist on giving the very
results that point toward it. If you do like the results, then you
will not like the cause. Yet, for you to achieve the same results, you
must engage in inventing multiple causes. Those inventions have no
basis for their existence except ignorance. I showed a path toward
recognizing unity among the fundamentals. You prefer disunity.
Disunity requires inventing extra causes as crutches to allow theory
to move forward in the face of the unknown.

By following the path of unity among the fundamentals, the unknown
does not get left behind mixed in as theory. Theory gets discarded.
The empirical evidence is always the guide. The unknown becomes
something we move into and as we do, the unknown becomes known. The
unity is never lost. You mentioned electric charge. For you electric
charge remains a mystery and a part of theory imposed upon the models
of physics. I have shown you that electric charge can be known in the
same terms as is its empirical evidence. It is different, but
different is better than invented.

James

[Aetherist]

>Yes I do have clear basis.

There is always 'a basis' that was not what was asked. IOW
while because I want it/say so is a basis for science it not
a vaslid viable one...

>The present circumstance is one of no basis.

That is your opinion, not that of almost all others.

>The clear basis that I have is that: All properties who's
>existence is inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible in
>the same terms as is that evidence.

I see no problem with length time or mass. To measure length you
need some sort of length 'to' measure we used sraight rods. now we
use lasers. To measure time you need some form of clock. Like
length and time you need a distinctive object means of determining
and measuring mass. We have that. It is no less emperical than
a clock or rod.

>If one does not follow this restriction, the only other choice is
>to guess about how one might express the nature of a property.

No less than time & space (length)

>Guessing is equivalent to inventing. You have accepted invention while
>I rely directly upon empirical evidence.

I would say you're relying on wishful thinking, wanting to remove
mass for solely personal reasons.

>
>Mass is the inverse of an acceleration. There were other choices,

Of course since you have no foundational basis...

>but this is the one that the results support best. The acceleration
>represented by inverse mass is the acceleration of the single cause

Of what, from what? IOW, what specific cause???

>for all effects. A portion of its acceleration is traded off as
>acceleration of an object. When the object slows its acceleration
>returns to the original cause. The original cause speeds up and slows
>down in opposite manner from the behavior of objects. It is a matter
>of conservation of acceleration. No other causes need be invented. You
>like inventing. I like finding. I have not yet disclosed the nature of
>the single cause. It is presently known but not recognized as such.

I see no impressive insights here, just personal opinion without
and emperical basis.

>The reason I do not bother others with this answer is that it would
>receive the kind of recption that you insist on giving

Yes, requirung you to give a rational, logical foundation for your claims.

>... the very results that point toward it. If you do like the results,

>then you will not like the cause.

YWhat cause?

>Yet, for you to achieve the same results, you must engage in inventing
>multiple causes.

On what basis do you say that?

>Those inventions have no basis for their existence except ignorance. I
>showed a path toward recognizing unity among the fundamentals. You prefer
>disunity.

What disunity?

>Disunity requires inventing extra causes as crutches to allow theory
>to move forward in the face of the unknown.
>
>By following the path of unity among the fundamentals, the unknown
>does not get left behind mixed in as theory. Theory gets discarded.
>The empirical evidence is always the guide. The unknown becomes
>something we move into and as we do, the unknown becomes known. The
>unity is never lost. You mentioned electric charge. For you electric
>charge remains a mystery and a part of theory imposed upon the models
>of physics. I have shown you that electric charge can be known in the
>same terms as is its empirical evidence. It is different, but
>different is better than invented.
>
>James

Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no mathematical
or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration. No let take #2,
Where is your basis for it? Playing with redefining unit arbitrarily
does not provide any useful function.

[James Putnam]

Of course it is. Just because you can't see even the first step, which
is mentioned again below, does not define what is a viable basis.

>
> >The present circumstance is one of no basis.
>
> That is your opinion, not that of almost all others.
>

No it is not just an opinion, The evidence that the present
circumstance has no basis is its need to invent properties. Now, while
the property of mass is definitely real, the step of giving it is own
indefinable units of measurement is tantamount to inserting an
invented property into the equation f=ma.

>
> >The clear basis that I have is that: All properties who's
> >existence is inferred from empirical evidence must be expressible in
> >the same terms as is that evidence.
>
> I see no problem with length time or mass.  To measure length you
> need some sort of length 'to' measure we used sraight rods.  now we
> use lasers.  To measure time you need some form of clock.  Like
> length and time you need a distinctive object means of determining
> and measuring mass.  We have that.  It is no less emperical than
> a clock or rod.
>

The units for time and distance are based upon a fundamental property.
The unit for mass is a human constructed object. That difference
occurs because the rejection of defining mass in terms of diatance and
time led to the inventing of a forged form of mass.

>
> >If one does not follow this restriction, the only other choice is
> >to guess about how one might express the nature of a property.
>
> No less than time & space (length)
>

We do not have to guess about time and space. They are the sutff that
empirical evidence is made from.

>
> >Guessing is equivalent to inventing. You have accepted invention while
> >I rely directly upon empirical evidence.
>
> I would say you're relying on wishful thinking, wanting to remove
> mass for solely personal reasons.
>

I gave you solid reasons. Your lack of understanding iof even the
first step in this empirical approach is the problem.

>
> >Mass is the inverse of an acceleration. There were other choices,
>
> Of course since you have no foundational basis...
>

No, there are other choices because there are other variations of
combinations of distance and time. Kilograms must be defined in the
empirical terms in which the empirical evidence is expressed. I did
that. Your human constructed object tells us only that it is a human
constructed invention.

>
> >but this is the one that the results support best. The acceleration
> >represented by inverse mass is the acceleration of the single cause
>
> Of what, from what?  IOW, what specific cause???
>

You do not get the cause because you do not even get the point. YTou
reject the first step, the second step, etc. why waste a conclusion?

>
> >for all effects. A portion of its acceleration is traded off as
> >acceleration of an object. When the object slows its acceleration
> >returns to the original cause. The original cause speeds up and slows
> >down in opposite manner from the behavior of objects. It is a matter
> >of conservation of acceleration. No other causes need be invented. You
> >like inventing. I like finding. I have not yet disclosed the nature of
> >the single cause. It is presently known but not recognized as such.
>
> I see no impressive insights here, just personal opinion without
> and emperical basis.
>

So you can't see it. I understand. You like theory. You want to add
theory. I am completely removing theory.

>
> >The reason I do not bother others with this answer is that it would
> >receive the kind of recption that you insist on giving
>
> Yes, requirung you to give a rational, logical foundation for your claims.
>

NO, I just understand very clearly that you do not understand anything
abvout what I am doing right from its start.

>
> >... the very results that point toward it. If you do like the results,
> >then you will not like the cause.
>
> YWhat cause?
>

You don't get the cause. I choose to not go through that with you.
When you get the first step, then we can approach the cause.

>
> >Yet, for you to achieve the same results, you must engage in inventing
> >multiple causes.
>
> On what basis do you say that?
>

Because you believe in theory. Theory consists of inventing causes to
serve in the place of the unknown. No one knows what cause is.
Multiple causes is evidence of the inventiveness of adding theory onto
the equations of physics. Those equations are not born as theoretical.
They are made theoretical.

>
> >Those inventions have no basis for their existence except ignorance. I
> >showed a path toward recognizing unity among the fundamentals. You prefer
> >disunity.
>
> What disunity?
>

The disunity that is clearly evidenced by the act of inventing
indefinable units of measurement to represent the property of mass in
physics equations. You either understand the that disunity is not a
part of empirical evidence or you don't. Disunity is the reason for
the existence of theory.

>
> >Disunity requires inventing extra causes as crutches to allow theory
> >to move forward in the face of the unknown.
>
> >By following the path of unity among the fundamentals, the unknown
> >does not get left behind mixed in as theory. Theory gets discarded.
> >The empirical evidence is always the guide. The unknown becomes
> >something we move into and as we do, the unknown becomes known. The
> >unity is never lost. You mentioned electric charge. For you electric
> >charge remains a mystery and a part of theory imposed upon the models
> >of physics. I have shown you that electric charge can be known in the
> >same terms as is its empirical evidence. It is different, but
> >different is better than invented.
>
> >James
>
> Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no mathematical
> or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration.  No let take #2,
> Where is your basis for it?  Playing with redefining unit arbitrarily

> does not provide any useful function.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -
>

I have admitted no concessions to you. You do not even know what I am
talking about. When I understand that you finally understand just the
first step in this approach, then we can talk about what comes next.
If you don't like this approach, I understand. You want more theory.
Theory is useful. Use it.

James

[James Putnam]

Just in case there are interested readers. This thread has to do with
establishing a path for an empirical understanding of electric charge.
The work has been done, at least on a fundamental, introductory level.
The path begins with mass and not electric charge. Mass must first be
itself interpreted in an empirical way. After the inclusion of the two
naturally indefinable properties of distance and time, there is only
the step of defining mass in terms of those two naturally indefinable
properties. Once mass is empirically defined in terms od distance and
time, then the rest of removing theory, at least in that fundamental
introductory sense, follows automatically. Force becomes definable
without the crutch of first arbitrarily making mass an indefinable
property. Electric charge no longer must be guessed to be a cause. The
role of the magnitude of the universal constant we presently refer to
as electric charge joins with mass and other properties as parts of a
fundamentally unified non-theory. Physics, again since I am still
eveloping this approach I am speaking at the fundamental introductory
level, becomes understood from an empirical point of view. The
mathematics remain, the invented properties that form theory go.

James Putnam

[ben6993]

Mass <--> s^2/L ?

The jitterbugging electron (The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, David Hestenes) seems to me to replace rest mass by
a gyroscopic inertial effect. Since all mass should come from
elementary particles, that seems to me to be a good starting point in
trying to remove the concept of rest mass in physics. That would fit
in with you apparently trying to remove an independent and what you
see as an unhelpful definition of (rest) mass?

Mass can then be explored through the gyroscopic effects on elementary
particles. So, compare the muon mass with the electron mass, as they
are two identical particles except for their different orders of
scale. The electron has a smaller mass and has a more fundamental, if
not an actual fundamental (?), vibration mode. Ie a larger wavelength
of some underlying string. The muon has perhaps the same underlying
string but a smaller wavelength. There is a hint here that smaller L
is equated with larger mass, but it is only a hint(?).

However, both are point particles in the 4D laboratory world of real
measurements. The string and its vibrations must therefore be taking
place in abstract mathematical vector space. (That does not agree with
what I have learned about strings which are taken of necessity to be
bigger than the Planck length.)

The electron and muon are very similar and are both jitterbugging at
rotational speed c in the abstract space. A constant rotational speed
and constant wavelength are equivalent to a constant acceleration: cf
the moon 'accelerating' to the earth but not progressing to there.

acceleration = -w^2 r
Substitute w=c and r=wavelength for muon, first, then electron,
second, and you get:

acceleration for muon < acceleration for electron ????
While muon mass > electron mass.

I am not a physicist so I may have slipped up somewhere. I have not
calculated with circular orbits for decades.

[FrediFizzx]

"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mh5ae7dgb3hsa5vo3...@4ax.com...

> Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no mathematical
> or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration.

Hi Paul,

It seems to me that defining mass as inverse acceleration is the most simple
physical basis there can be for it. After all it is a resistance to
acceleration. Comparing it to a Kg standard *weight* is just defining it by
gravitational acceleration is it not?

Best,

Fred Diether

[ben6993]

> calculated with circular orbits for decades.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry: correction to my previous post where I substituted c as a
limiting value for the angular speed, w. I think I can only
substitute c for a linear speed, v, not for an angular speed, w.
Speed v = rw, where r = radius of orbit = wavelength of particle.

Hence acceleration = -v^2/r = - c^2 / wavelength.
Ie acceleration is inversely proportional to the wavelength.
Ie the muon has a smaller wavelength than the electron, and hence a
bigger acceleration and a bigger mass.
Halving a wavelength doubles the acceleration and doubles the mass.

So, I have tried to do very simple calculations to see if mass is
related to s^2/L and found that mass is related to 1/L. That was
clear from E = mc^2 = h/wavelength. But in trying to relate mass
directly to an inverse acceleration, I thought I had found that
relation but I had made an error in calculation. Instead I find mass
is proportional to the acceleration. It cannot be straightforward to
assign units to mass based on calculations like these. Also, in view
of the news of the possible Higgs glimpse this week, where does Higgs
come into these calculations? Maybe in setting the limit of v=c?

Defining mass as acceleration could be taken as enabling a resistance
to further acceleration. (I note that Fred suggests that defining
mass as the inverse of aceleration also could be taken as a resistance
to acceleration. So is one view correct or the inverse view!) Maybe
there is an analogy with special relativity where a fast moving
particle has less scope to move through the time dimension as that
speed already uses up much of its total ration of c. Perhaps
likewise, the gyroscopic action has used up some share of total
permitted maximum acceleration and hence provides a resistance to
further acceleration. The gyroscopic action involves v=c so it is hard
to see any scope left for further acceleration. However the extra
dimensions of the abstract mathematical space may come into play here
by giving more total degrees of freedom for movement.

[Aetherist]

Conversely one can argue that force is simply dp/dt or the first
derivative of momentum wrt to time. Further, there is a much better
ontilogical basis for arguing that momentum and volume are the only
actual definable 'phyiical' property. Length is a geometric property
of that volume and time a direct result of momenta. No momenta, no
time...

Massiveness (as in ponderable 'rest' mass) is an emergent effect
of said systemic momenta in certain configurations/circumstances. But
there is no basis for arbitrarily claiming its inverse acceleration.
There exist not mathematical of observational foundation for such a claim
except for someone justing wanting it to be so. As a counter example
as you know my basis for suggesting charge has units of mass/sec is
that of a linear harmonic oscillator which is solidly founded in
observations of Quantum Mechanics. But I also show that it is also
solidly founded on the field divergence of a compressible medium.

The onus is on anyone who wishes to propose a alternative theory to
clearly show a solid physical/mathematical foundation for their
position. Just playing with units doesn't cut it.and anyone can invent
such systems that are internally 'self-consistent'. You could claim
mass is Klvins/sec. As long as you carry this through all known relation
replacing kg with K/sec its consistent but just mental wishful thinking.
Thus the term 'not even wrong'!

Regards,

Paul

>Best,
>
>Fred Diether

[FrediFizzx]

"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:816ne7hho7ct0fg88...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:08:39 CST, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:mh5ae7dgb3hsa5vo3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no mathematical
>>> or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration.
>>
>>Hi Paul,
>>
>>It seems to me that defining mass as inverse acceleration is the most
>>simple
>>physical basis there can be for it. After all it is a resistance to
>>acceleration. Comparing it to a Kg standard *weight* is just defining it
>>by
>>gravitational acceleration is it not?
>
> Conversely one can argue that force is simply dp/dt or the first
> derivative of momentum wrt to time. Further, there is a much better
> ontilogical basis for arguing that momentum and volume are the only
> actual definable 'phyiical' property. Length is a geometric property
> of that volume and time a direct result of momenta. No momenta, no
> time...

You are just indirectly using length and time for your definitions.

> Massiveness (as in ponderable 'rest' mass) is an emergent effect
> of said systemic momenta in certain configurations/circumstances. But
> there is no basis for arbitrarily claiming its inverse acceleration.

I gave you the basis; resistance to acceleration. You can't even tell if
something is massive until acceleration via a force is applied. Or more
accurately, relative massiveness as that is all we can know.

> There exist not mathematical of observational foundation for such a claim
> except for someone justing wanting it to be so. As a counter example
> as you know my basis for suggesting charge has units of mass/sec is
> that of a linear harmonic oscillator which is solidly founded in
> observations of Quantum Mechanics. But I also show that it is also
> solidly founded on the field divergence of a compressible medium.

Sure, but you are starting with mass defined as a base dimension.

> The onus is on anyone who wishes to propose a alternative theory to
> clearly show a solid physical/mathematical foundation for their
> position. Just playing with units doesn't cut it.and anyone can invent
> such systems that are internally 'self-consistent'. You could claim
> mass is Klvins/sec. As long as you carry this through all known relation
> replacing kg with K/sec its consistent but just mental wishful thinking.
> Thus the term 'not even wrong'!

Well, there is certainly more significance to defining mass as inverse
acceleration than would be for defining it as kelvins/sec. I really don't
see any problem with the notion that mass is resistance to acceleration. In
fact, that is what it says about mass on the first line of the definition in
Wikipedia,

"In physics, mass ...., more specifically *inertial mass*, can be defined as
a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its
speed."

Remove mass as a base dimension in your unit system then you might as well
define it as inverse acceleration.

Best,

Fred Diether

[Aetherist]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:34:00 CST, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:816ne7hho7ct0fg88...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:08:39 CST, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mh5ae7dgb3hsa5vo3...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no
>>>> mathematical or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration.
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> It seems to me that defining mass as inverse acceleration is the most
>>> simple physical basis there can be for it. After all it is a resistance to
>>> acceleration. Comparing it to a Kg standard *weight* is just defining it
>>> by gravitational acceleration is it not?
>>
>> Conversely one can argue that force is simply dp/dt or the first
>> derivative of momentum wrt to time. Further, there is a much better
>> ontilogical basis for arguing that momentum and volume are the only
>> actual definable 'phyiical' property. Length is a geometric property
>> of that volume and time a direct result of momenta. No momenta, no
>> time...
>
> You are just indirectly using length and time for your definitions.

You got it backward 'from that point of view'. Length & time are
derivative OF the two, not the other way around. In that view momenta
IS primal, indivisible into anything else. In viewing a near infinite
'sea' of such primal entities length, time, and mass are emergent,
a result of these occupying a volume. Thus the circle closes back to
momenta & volume... Imagine a system in which there was NO! motion
what-so-ever. Mass & volume but NO! movement at all... Time has no
meaning, it does not exist in such...

>> Massiveness (as in ponderable 'rest' mass) is an emergent effect
>> of said systemic momenta in certain configurations/circumstances. But
>> there is no basis for arbitrarily claiming its inverse acceleration.
>
>I gave you the basis; resistance to acceleration. You can't even tell if
>something is massive until acceleration via a force is applied. Or more
>accurately, relative massiveness as that is all we can know.

Two charges can accelerate each other and mass is not involved in the
process. F = qE, there is no mass there. Yes, all known charges have
mass but light does not, and is 'bent' (forced to change direction) by
a magnetic field. Light exhibits force when absorbed, but again, is
massless in the ponderable sense. Yet common to all is momentum &
energy.

>> There exist not mathematical of observational foundation for such a claim
>> except for someone justing wanting it to be so. As a counter example
>> as you know my basis for suggesting charge has units of mass/sec is
>> that of a linear harmonic oscillator which is solidly founded in
>> observations of Quantum Mechanics. But I also show that it is also
>> solidly founded on the field divergence of a compressible medium.
>
> Sure, but you are starting with mass defined as a base dimension.

Only because that is the SI system it is expressed in. I could write

q = p/L

Where p is momentum and L wavelength... No mass there unless, again
one wants to use the definition of p = mv. In the case of charge
m = p/c -> (p/c)nu = q. But it is, again, just playing games with
definitions and provides nothing insightful.

>> The onus is on anyone who wishes to propose a alternative theory to
>> clearly show a solid physical/mathematical foundation for their
>> position. Just playing with units doesn't cut it.and anyone can invent
>> such systems that are internally 'self-consistent'. You could claim
>> mass is Klvins/sec. As long as you carry this through all known relation
>> replacing kg with K/sec its consistent but just mental wishful thinking.
>> Thus the term 'not even wrong'!
>
> Well, there is certainly more significance to defining mass as inverse
> acceleration than would be for defining it as kelvins/sec.

The Kelvins/sec was an arbitrarily choosen example to show the arbitrary
nature of such choices.

> I really don't see any problem with the notion that mass is resistance
> to acceleration. In fact, that is what it says about mass on the first
> line of the definition in Wikipedia,

Yes, 'ponderable' matter is measured by it inertia. But that it is something
uniquely distinct justifies giving it its own name, mass. But as I've mentioned
to others, a vortex ring exhibits such 'inertia' (resistance to changes in speed)
independent of the fluid mass of it makeup. The circulation of the momenta
has a gyroscopic resistance just like trying to tilt one... This does NOT!
make vortex rings inverse acceleration...

> "In physics, mass ...., more specifically *inertial mass*, can be defined as
> a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its
> speed."
>
> Remove mass as a base dimension in your unit system then you might as well
> define it as inverse acceleration.

But again, its an arbitrary mental exercise without any useful purpose.
You still have the distinct property of inertia whether you want to hide it
or not.

Regards,

> Best,
>
>Fred Diether

[FrediFizzx]

"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:coboe7pc60hajrtbs...@4ax.com...

Why not? Seems reasonable to me if you want to think that way.

>> "In physics, mass ...., more specifically *inertial mass*, can be defined
>> as
>> a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its
>> speed."
>>
>> Remove mass as a base dimension in your unit system then you might as
>> well
>> define it as inverse acceleration.
>
> But again, its an arbitrary mental exercise without any useful purpose.
> You still have the distinct property of inertia whether you want to hide
> it
> or not.

It is not hidden. Not sure why you would think it is. Mass simply has the
dimensions of time^2/length. 1 kilogram = sec^2/meter in the units James is
using. Nothing has gone away; just defined differently. Granted, it is
probably easier to work problems out with mass defined as a base dimension
but I don't think it is an absolute necessity if you want to look at physics
from a different perspective and as the definition of mass shows it to be a
resistance to acceleration I see no problem in doing what James has done.

Best,

Fred Diether

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:54:11 CST, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:coboe7pc60hajrtbs...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:34:00 CST, "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I really don't see any problem with the notion that mass is resistance
>>> to acceleration. In fact, that is what it says about mass on the first
>>> line of the definition in Wikipedia,
>>
>> Yes, 'ponderable' matter is measured by it inertia. But that it is
>> something uniquely distinct justifies giving it its own name, mass.
>> But as I've mentioned to others, a vortex ring exhibits such 'inertia'
>> (resistance to changes in speed) independent of the fluid mass of it
>> makeup. The circulation of the momenta has a gyroscopic resistance just
>> like trying to tilt one... This does NOT! make vortex rings inverse
>> acceleration...
>
> Why not? Seems reasonable to me if you want to think that way.

Like I told James earlier, "because I want to" is a basis, just not a
valid scientific one.

>>> "In physics, mass ...., more specifically *inertial mass*, can be defined
>>> as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its
>>> speed."
>>>
>>> Remove mass as a base dimension in your unit system then you might as
>>> well define it as inverse acceleration.
>>
>> But again, its an arbitrary mental exercise without any useful purpose.
>> You still have the distinct property of inertia whether you want to hide
>> it or not.
>
>It is not hidden. Not sure why you would think it is. Mass simply has the
>dimensions of time^2/length. 1 kilogram = sec^2/meter in the units James is
>using. Nothing has gone away; just defined differently. Granted, it is
>probably easier to work problems out with mass defined as a base dimension
>but I don't think it is an absolute necessity if you want to look at physics
>from a different perspective and as the definition of mass shows it to be a
>resistance to acceleration I see no problem in doing what James has done.

And I've said this to. You can replace kg with any damned thing you want
(I picked at random Kelvins/sec) and replace all instances of kg with it.
Its internally self-consistent but serves no insightful purpose because I
had not actual basis for doing so except for just wanting to. I'd expect
you and others to take me to task to explain the physical and/or mathematicl
basis of my choice. Arbitrarily redefining units or scaling (like setting
c = 1, h = 1) cannot be scientifivcally challenged since falsification is
simply not possible. This, as I pointed out before puts them into the
category of 'not even wrong'. Personally I find all such totally arbitrary
scalings & redefintions both useless and even worse, for those using c = 1
guilty of deliberate ofuscation. The engineer in me rails againt such
useless obfuscations.

>Best,
>
>Fred Diether

[Tom]

On Dec 14 2011, 7:08 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Aetherist" <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Negative acceleration ("slow light") makes physical sense to me.
Inverse
acceleration does not. In the former case, we may derive dark energy,
and the basis for cosmological inflation (a la Guth). If acceleration
has
an inverse, OTOH, the only possible meaning I can derive is that
mass/spacetime is inifnitely divisible (as mass approaches infinity)
-- but
then that contradicts the idea of "physics" itself, unless we insert
(as James has) some fundamental cause that "somehow" imparts physical
meaning. This "uncaused cause" just looks like Aristotle to me, and
not
physically plausible, since we know very well that causality can be
described
by feedback loops, so we need not know what "one hand clapping" sounds
like in order to do physics.

The only complete solution I have seen for avoiding infinities in a
fundamental
framework is Joy Christian's.

Tom

[James Putnam]

> Tom- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Tom,

My reference to inverse acceleration has to do with mass as portrayed
in f=ma. What I am really saying is simply that force is a ratio of
two accelerations. The acceleration represented by inverse mass is a
straighforward property of acceleration. It is just that if this
acceleration, represented by the inverse of mass, is to be consistent
with the customary representation of m in f=ma, then the units invert
and become those of inverse acceleration. There is no strange new kind
of interpretation intended for m. In other words, m=1/(a_m). As I
mentioned force is a ratio of two different accelerations. The
acceleration represented by inverse mass arises from the single cause
for all effects.

Fred,

Just spent a couple of weeks in post-op recovery. I will write
something to address the concerns that accumulated while I was
avoiding the Internet.

Happy New Year all.

James

[FrediFizzx]

"Tom" <thra...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fc5edd4c-139e-4a72...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 14 2011, 7:08 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Aetherist" <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:mh5ae7dgb3hsa5vo3...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > Well, so far we got you to admit that there is, in fact, no
>> > mathematical
>> > or physical basis for mass being inverse acceleration.
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> It seems to me that defining mass as inverse acceleration is the most
>> simple
>> physical basis there can be for it. After all it is a resistance to
>> acceleration. Comparing it to a Kg standard *weight* is just defining it
>> by
>> gravitational acceleration is it not?

> Negative acceleration ("slow light") makes physical sense to me.
> Inverse
> acceleration does not. In the former case, we may derive dark energy,
> and the basis for cosmological inflation (a la Guth). If acceleration
> has
> an inverse, OTOH, the only possible meaning I can derive is that
> mass/spacetime is inifnitely divisible (as mass approaches infinity)
> -- but
> then that contradicts the idea of "physics" itself, unless we insert
> (as James has) some fundamental cause that "somehow" imparts physical
> meaning. This "uncaused cause" just looks like Aristotle to me, and
> not
> physically plausible, since we know very well that causality can be
> described
> by feedback loops, so we need not know what "one hand clapping" sounds
> like in order to do physics.
>
> The only complete solution I have seen for avoiding infinities in a
> fundamental
> framework is Joy Christian's.

Hi Tom and welcome to SPF,

We are basically discussing James' unusual unit system here. For me,
negative acceleration is just deceleration so I don't think that would be
good for a definition of mass but I don't think that was your intention.
Yes, inverse acceleration for a definition of mass is hard to get one's mind
around in a physical sense but so is having force be dimensionless.
However, you have to be careful in this unit system as mass is still the
same thing. It just happens to have units of sec^2/length --> 1Kg =
sec^2/meter. That is all. Similar to how in CGS based natural units, hbar
= c = 1, mass (or energy) can have units of 1/length.

Best,

Fred Diether

[Tom]

On Jan 3, 9:01 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Tom" <thray...@aol.com> wrote in message

Hi, Fred. Thanks. I get it -- however, this implied act of weighing
spacetime
is dissimilar from how we calculate mass in a spacetime field, because
the latter assumes mass is not independent of the field. James's idea
leaves us with the problem of "here, a miracle occurs," because it
has no causal mechanism to explain the origin of mass. So long as
field
theory can potentially do so, I see no reason to invoke a first cause.
We've wandered over into philosophy.

James -- I didn't know you were in the hospital. Feel better, buddy!

Best,

Tom

[Tom]

> James- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

James,

To comment a little further:

The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
is zero. Your assumptions either require division by zero, which
is impermissible, or a ratio 1/1 = 0, in which case the universe
is populated by zero mass.

I don't have a problem with zero mass content averaged over
the entire universe; however, I don't find any use for it in any
classical sense, where Newton's operational definition is just
fine. If you want to apply your technique to the quantum
domain, you'll have to overcome the problem of explaining how
zero average mass/energy acquires local mass values (and
thus present an alternate theory to the Standard Model,
where the Higgs field does that job).

Again -- get well!

Tom

[James Putnam]

On Jan 4, 8:16 am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> To comment a little further:
>
> The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> is zero.  Your assumptions either require division by zero, which
> is impermissible, or a ratio 1/1 = 0, in which case the universe
> is populated by zero mass.
>

Tom,

The ratio of two accelerations is a number that depends upon the
magnitudes of the accelerations. What you said above does not apply to
what I am saying.

> The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> is zero.

Why do you say this?

James

[Tom]

On Jan 4, 1:27 pm, James Putnam <ja...@jamesputnam.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:16 am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > To comment a little further:
>
> > The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> > is zero. Your assumptions either require division by zero, which
> > is impermissible, or a ratio 1/1 = 0, in which case the universe
> > is populated by zero mass.
>
> Tom,
>
> The ratio of two accelerations is a number that depends upon the
> magnitudes of the accelerations. What you said above does not apply to
> what I am saying.

It has to. If the magnitudes are unequal, you have to explain why
Newton's laws of motion are wrong.

>
> > The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> > is zero.
>
> Why do you say this?

I should have said 1, not 0. (Yes, I just saw my error 1/1 = 1, not
zero.) It's the same thing physically, though. Equal acceleration in
opposite directions is zero. We're left with m = 1 everywhere except
where it's zero. What does that mean? It's something I'll think
about.

Tom

[James Putnam]

On Jan 4, 3:58 pm, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 1:27 pm, James Putnam <ja...@jamesputnam.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 8:16 am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > To comment a little further:
>
> > > The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> > > is zero. Your assumptions either require division by zero, which
> > > is impermissible, or a ratio 1/1 = 0, in which case the universe
> > > is populated by zero mass.
>
> > Tom,
>
> > The ratio of two accelerations is a number that depends upon the
> > magnitudes of the accelerations. What you said above does not apply to
> > what I am saying.
>
> It has to.  If the magnitudes are unequal, you have to explain why
> Newton's laws of motion are wrong.
>

Newton's laws of motion are not wrong. My definition for mass does not
contradict Newton's laws of motion. The magnitudes of acceleration
will almost always have unequal magnitudes. The acceleration
represented by mass is not an acceleration of the object. The object's
acceleration is 'a' only. I have to assume that we are saying two very
different things. Whatever the problem is, the first point to be made,
and it is valid, is that all properties inferred from empirical

evidence must be expressible in the same terms as is that evidence.

The evidence is expressed in terms of meters and seconds. Both mass,
i.e. resistance to force, and force must be expressible in terms that
are combinations of meters and/or seconds. Making up an invented unit,
due to ignorance about how to follow the lead given us by empirical
evidence, is the first error of theoretical physics. That first error
was to assign the indefinable units of kilograms to mass making mass
an indefinable property. It is an indefinable property because the
theorists failed to determine how to define mass in terms of meters
and/or seconds. What you have said thus far appears to have no
connection to what I am saying. Ones and zeros have no important role
to play in evaluating what I am saying.

James

>
>
> > > The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> > > is zero.
>
> > Why do you say this?
>
> I should have said 1, not 0.  (Yes, I just saw my error 1/1 = 1, not
> zero.)  It's the same thing physically, though.  Equal acceleration in
> opposite directions is zero.  We're left with m = 1 everywhere except
> where it's zero.  What does that mean?  It's something I'll think
> about.
>

The object is not experiencing equal accelerations in opposite
directions. It is not experiencing equal forces in opposite
directions. It is experiencing an imabalance of any and all applied
forces. that imbalance results in an acceleration in a the direction
of the applied resultant force.

James

[Tom]

James, inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.
"kilogram"
is measured relative to a gravity field. It is not undefined.
Assuming the
laws of physics are uniform throughout the universe, the same kilogram
unit will vary everywhere by a predictable value proportionate to the
strength of the gravity field in which it is measured. In free fall,
far away
from the influence of a gravity field, the mass is weightless --
however,
its potential energy measured as inertia is still x kilograms, because
mass
and energy are also equivalent. This is all empirical, and nothing
but.

>It is an indefinable property because the
> theorists failed to determine how to define mass in terms of meters
> and/or seconds. What you have said thus far appears to have no
> connection to what I am saying. Ones and zeros have no important role
> to play in evaluating what I am saying.
>
> James
>
>
>
> > > > The ratio of two accelerations (+ and -), by Newton's laws of motion,
> > > > is zero.
>
> > > Why do you say this?
>
> > I should have said 1, not 0.  (Yes, I just saw my error 1/1 = 1, not
> > zero.)  It's the same thing physically, though.  Equal acceleration in
> > opposite directions is zero.  We're left with m = 1 everywhere except
> > where it's zero.  What does that mean?  It's something I'll think
> > about.
>
> The object is not experiencing equal accelerations in opposite
> directions. It is not experiencing equal forces in opposite
> directions.

Then it violates Newton's laws of motion.

Tom

>It is experiencing an imabalance of any and all applied
> forces. that imbalance results in an acceleration in a the direction
> of the applied resultant force.
>

[James Putnam]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom,

Kilograms in an indefinable unit of measurement. It is indefinable
because it was not defined in terms of pre-existing units. It is
indefinable regardless of whether or not there is a bar stored away
representing a kilogram. If it was a definable property, it would not
need that bar.

I have not explained many things yet. That is because it is pointless
to debate against accepted concepts while the new concepts are not
only not understood, they are ignored. The path I choose to follow is
the one that has a chance of attracting interest. It begins wth
empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes
of velocity of objects. No theory is needed if f=ma can be interpreted
using only the empirical evidence that it models. That is what I have
done. The second step is to show that the choice I made for defining
the units of mass can be successfuly extended into higher level
analyses without allowing the theorist to disrupt the process. The
benefit gained is that the analysis begins with fundamental unity and
generates unity as analysis proceeds forward, eliminating the disunity
which theorists have imposed upon the equations of physics. I know
answers beyond these. If you prefer theorized analyses to using an
empirical approach, then you like theory. However, theory is the
practice of inventing causes to substitute for the unknown. Further
manipulation of equations can be referred to as theory, but, at its
core theory is the practice of pretending to know the unknown. You do
not know what mass is. The reason I know that is because you accept
the choice to make mass an indefinable property. In other words, you
work with a theory of mass.

James

[Tom]

James, the "bar" only standardizes our measure for Earth's gravity
field.

>
> I have not explained many things yet. That is because it is pointless
> to debate against accepted concepts while the new concepts are not
> only not understood, they are ignored. The path I choose to follow is
> the one that has a chance of attracting interest. It begins wth
> empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes
> of velocity of objects.

Right. Mass changes velocity according to the strength
of the gravity field in which it resides. No mysterious undefined
properties
here.

> No theory is needed if f=ma can be interpreted
> using only the empirical evidence that it models. That is what I have
> done. The second step is to show that the choice I made for defining
> the units of mass can be successfuly extended into higher level
> analyses without allowing the theorist to disrupt the process. The
> benefit gained is that the analysis begins with fundamental unity and
> generates unity as analysis proceeds forward, eliminating the disunity
> which theorists have imposed upon the equations of physics. I know
> answers beyond these. If you prefer theorized analyses to using an
> empirical approach, then you like theory. However, theory is the
> practice of inventing causes to substitute for the unknown. Further
> manipulation of equations can be referred to as theory, but, at its
> core theory is the practice of pretending to know the unknown.  You do
> not know what mass is. The reason I know that is because you accept
> the choice to make mass an indefinable property. In other words, you
> work with a theory of mass.
>

I don't have any problem with that. No phenomena is explained without
a theory.

Tom

[James Putnam]

On Jan 6, 7:46 am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
>
> > Kilograms in an indefinable unit of measurement. It is indefinable
> > because it was not defined in terms of pre-existing units. It is
> > indefinable regardless of whether or not there is a bar stored away
> > representing a kilogram. If it was a definable property, it would not
> > need that bar.
>
> James, the "bar" only standardizes our measure for Earth's gravity
> field.
>

The bar would not be necessary if mass was defined in the same terms
as is the empirical evidence from which its existence is inferred.
Mass would then share the standards used for length and time.

>
>
> > I have not explained many things yet. That is because it is pointless
> > to debate against accepted concepts while the new concepts are not
> > only not understood, they are ignored. The path I choose to follow is
> > the one that has a chance of attracting interest. It begins wth
> > empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes
> > of velocity of objects.
>
> Right.  Mass changes velocity according to the strength
> of the gravity field in which it resides.  No mysterious undefined
> properties
> here.
>

The mystery remains. I am not challenging relationships. They stay.
They are what the equations model. The mystery is what is mass? The
relationships do not tell us that answer. Stating relationships does
not explain the property. The explanation of the nature of mass must
be confronted at the beginning of its appearance in f=ma. It must be
determined how to define it or it remains an unexplained property.
Additional relationships cannot clarify the nature of mass because
they use the indefinable status assigned to mass.

There is choice in how to learn what mass is. However, that choice is
confined within this requirement: Mass must be expressible in the same
terms as is the empirical evidence from which its existence is
inferred. That empirical evidence is observed as patterns in changes
of velocity. Changes of velocity are expressed in terms of meters and
seconds. Therefore, the choices to be tested for learning what is
mass, all lie within the requirement that the units for mass must be
defined as some combination of meters and seconds. The choice that I
use requires testing by seeing whether or not it preserves fundamental
unity among all properties right from the start.

There is no way for an invented indefinable unit, arbitrarily assigned
to mass, to preserve that which it destroys. The invented indefinable
unit of kilograms for mass was the first step in destroying the
possibility of recognizing the existence of fundamental unity. From
that step forward, additional causes must be invented for the purpose
of representing disunity in the further development of theory. Getting
mass correct right from the start makes it unnecessary to invent
additional causes. Theory is the practice of inventing these additonal
causes. Correctly defining mass removes the theoretical need for
additional causes and thereby, removes the need for theory. Empirical
evidence is best understood when viewed free of the inventions and
imaginings of theorists. The equations of physics preserve fundamental
unity every step along the way of their development so long as they
are free of the inventions and imaginings of theorists.

Define mass correctly right from the start and one cause is all that
is needed for all effects.

>
>
> > No theory is needed if f=ma can be interpreted
> > using only the empirical evidence that it models. That is what I have
> > done. The second step is to show that the choice I made for defining
> > the units of mass can be successfuly extended into higher level
> > analyses without allowing the theorist to disrupt the process. The
> > benefit gained is that the analysis begins with fundamental unity and
> > generates unity as analysis proceeds forward, eliminating the disunity
> > which theorists have imposed upon the equations of physics. I know
> > answers beyond these. If you prefer theorized analyses to using an
> > empirical approach, then you like theory. However, theory is the
> > practice of inventing causes to substitute for the unknown. Further
> > manipulation of equations can be referred to as theory, but, at its
> > core theory is the practice of pretending to know the unknown.  You do
> > not know what mass is. The reason I know that is because you accept
> > the choice to make mass an indefinable property. In other words, you
> > work with a theory of mass.
>
> I don't have any problem with that.  No phenomena is explained without
> a theory.
>

Theory only explains theory. Removing theory does not remove
explanation. Explanation does not need theory. Explaining mass does
not require theory. Defining mass does not require theory.
Understanding f=ma does not require theory. Understanding comes from
learning what empirical evidence is revealing to us. Empirical
evidence arrives theory free. The equations that model the patterns
observed in empirical evidence should be kept theory free. It is in
their empirical, theory free, form that they are most useful. F=ma is
more useful if it is kept theory free. The first step in providing for
theory free equations is to define mass and force in the same terms as
their empirical evidence is expressed. The answer is either contained
by this requirement or theory invades physics.
>
James

[James Putnam]

On Jan 6, 10:47 am, James Putnam <ja...@jamesputnam.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:46 am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tom,
>

> > > Kilograms is an indefinable unit of measurement. It is indefinable

> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The last point I made about "...theory invades physics." is crucial.
The necessity for freeing the mathematical representations of patterns
observed in empirical evidence from the invasion of theory is that
theory is invented to substitute for lack of knowledge. If our lack of
knowledge is left in the mathematical equations, meaning keeping the
equations purely empirical, then we will always know what it is that
we do not know. Theory confuses the analysis of empirical evidence. It
makes it seem as if we know that which we do not know. Perhaps even
worse, theory changes the equations and their meanings so that we can
be misled. The equations remain useful but are artificially limited,
often even misleading, about the nature of he universe.

This thread was intended to concentrate on understanding the nature of
electric charge from a theory-free perspective. The interest level has
wained, so I will make known the conclusion that there is no such
thing as electric charge. I mean this in the sense that electric
charge is portrayed as the source for electromagnetic effects and that
it is not. The magnitude of electric charge is the one true universal
constant and it is only a measure of time. This conclusion follows
from the initial requirement that all properties inferred to exist fom
the patterns observed in empirical evidence must be expressible in the
same terms as is that evidence. That evidence consists of patterns in
changes of velocity and it is expressed in terms of combinations of
meters and/or seconds. All properties, and in this case particularly
electric charge, must be expressible in terms of meters and/or
seconds.

The result of following through from defining mass in the equation
f=ma, in terms of the empirical evidence from which its existence was
inferred, to electric charge is that electric charge is a measure of
time. This measure of time turns out to be the key to achieving unity
throughout theory. This incremental measure of time is the quantity of
time that should be used in the denominator of equations that measure
the change of 'whatever' with respect to time. This alternative
solution to understanding electric charge was made necessary by the
requirement that: There is one cause for all effects and that cause is
not electric charge.

James

[ben6993]

I am not a physicist and have a non-mathematical model for particles,
arising from the idea that an electron can only occupy one spin state
at a time, and described in another thread on this site. I have now
started to write up the model. In my model, the universe is fractal
with sub-quanta existing. The fixed things in my model are the spin
state space which is occupied by matter in an unbreachable space time
bag and behaves like a cosmos passing through singularities and
inflationary periods. Dimensions L and T and mass are all emergent
properties. The spin is a fixed property and can be left handed or
right handed. That determines the sign of the charge. The inflating
cosmos is like a screw rotating and interacting with particles in the
space around it. Speed boat propellor effects show that counter
rotating propellors give maximum thrust in a straight line and that is
what gives the photon its speed as it has a left handed spin (matter)
state and a right handed spin (antimatter) in tandem. A single
propellor produces motion in a circle, which makes the electron not
move at speed c. Combinations of unlike charges can eliminate mass in
the photon. The matter remains in it though, intact. Looked at like
this a combination of charges can determine mass and can determine
whether a particle is a fermion or a boson for the same bags of
matter. That is why I do not see charge as less fundamental than mass
and length. It is really spin rather than charge, but charge is the
effect, on its surounds, of a screw structure with inflationary spin.
I may be wrong of course as there is no maths in this idea.

[James Putnam]

Hi Ben6993,

Good luck with your model. I don't see it as having anything in common
with what I am saying, but, that is ok. You are following your own
mind and you are welcome to do that. Perhaps someone else will have
something to say about it. Thank you.

James

[ben6993]

On Feb 1, 11:29 pm, James Putnam <ja...@jamesputnam.com> wrote:
<snip>
Hi James

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. I have enjoyed reading
your posts.
Good luck to you, too.

Ben6993