James Putnam

This is why I work from the fundamentals step by step. Great leaps forward into complex theory and the terms that are born out of the theory do not address the question of: What have we learned about the operation of the universe that leads step by step toward fuller understanding. If Einstein's theory is correct, then we should be able to see the development of that theory step by step from the fundamentals. Transform equations force a relationship without going through this step by step approach. Transform equations are not safe mathematics for helping to learn truth about the operation of the universe. That is my opinion. I think now that this discussion probably is not going to settle anything. I respect your viewpoint. Thank you for your time. James

This is what you quoted. Originally Posted by InfiniteNow Also, there is no need to "dumb down" physics simply because people who are too lazy to study or too stupid to understand haven't yet figured out how words are properly used in this context. Clock dilation? Really? Come on... The problem is that Einstein's treatment of time has led to the theory of spacetime. Where does that leap of imagination come into play. Or, would you say that space really means proper length and time really means proper time. What is spacetime? Is it four dimensions that include three coordinates of real space and one of real time? Are real space and real time interdependent or is there simply a relationship between changes in length and measurements of time? None of this is meant to challenge you or your depth of knowledge. I would simply ask that an explanation be given that uses the words that accurately convey what is meant by spacetime. It would help in debate and might also be useful to general readers that have a strong interest in learning about Einstein's theories. James

You agree with what parts. Am I too stupid to understand? Is that what you think also? I know what proper time is. But that is not what is said. The word is 'time'. I say proper time is equivalent to clock time. Therefore, it is clock dilation and not time dilation. James

I am not trying to take anything away from statistical analysis of possible states. What I am avoiding doing is skipping over what it was that was discovered in the original derivation of entropy. It is an unknown and it should not be. I think it is very important to get thermodynamic entropy correct. It is evidence of something that is physically important for us to know. I think there is a possibility that earlier misteps in the development of physics theory are what is making this problem difficult to solve. Well, anyway, that is what I think and proceed on. Thank you for your advice. James

[speaking just about the use of space and time in theory) Its length and cyclic motion that we have to work. Calling these two space and time is unwarranted by any empirical evidence. It is found that length shortens and cyclic motion slows as an object nears a body of matter, but, that is the empirical evidence we should be working from. Cyclic motion changes with respect to time and and somehow it, theoretically, becomes time itself that has changed. The increase in energy of light as it approaches the earth tells us important information about light and matter, but not about space or time. James

Hi Snoopy, My work has been in the public arena of the Internet for years. I have no problem with presenting it to others. However, the forum setting just doesn't work well for contesting physics theory. Hypography is the only forum I actively particpate in. I am not new to it. I think it works better than the others. There are some participants that I choose to put on ignore (there is also one moderator, but I can't put him on ignore). But, overall, there is a special quality about most of the moderators, editors, and participants in general that makes the interchange of ideas seem more personal in the positive sense. Its as if we are acquaintences that have already met. I think most people here really care about being a part of the best. Even here though, I think it is necessary to limit what you hope to accomplish if the ideas are new and different. Besides, they may be wrong. No reason to get in too deep until you see if you are making progress. Anyway, this seems like a good time to compliment Tormod and give recognition to the staff and members of hypography. James

I am not troubled by time. I am troubled by efforts to make time subservient to theory. I read the link. My own conclusion is that motion takes place in time, but is separate from time. We can't experiment with time in order to prove anything physical about it. However, there is a way to come close to it. That way would be to determine a fundamental constant that is a measure of time that is not affected by motion or gravity or anything that we can devise. It would be a universal clock keeping precise time free of material influence. James

And, of course, since I see the use of the name 'time' (What do you mean by it?) as being very possibly misleading, I would say the effect of clock dilation. James

I probably read what you are referring to, but I am not sure where specifically you are pointing me. Is it to the Leo Szilard example? Or, is it the probability analysis? I'll go look back. I may be remembering incorrectly. Yes. But I thought I saw a strong preference for information entropy as the best definition. Statistical yes, but, actually what I am looking for is an interpretation of entropy that follows a clear physical definition of what is temperature. Temperature is the indefinable property in the defining equation of thermodynamic entropy. I see it as the hurdle that must be overcome before explaining thermodynamic entropy. James

I don't know for sure that I saw everything that has been posted, but I did quite a bit of searching and reading to see if I could pick up on a previous thread. From what I saw there seemed to be satisfaction with 'disorder' and 'unusable heat'. The threads seemed to be quickly directed toward information entropy as if thermodynamic entropy was a subset of informational entropy. I think that Clausius did discover a true physical activity that was occuring. I think that it is important to learn what that activity is. I personally would not leave the subject of thermodynamic entropy until I felt I understood it. Every subject I raise here is one which I think I now understand. However, if I said my own conclusions straightforwardly, they would, understandably, be quickly dismissed. I will not be bringing them into the forum discussion because there is no way I could justify them in a forum setting. Instead my intent is to stress what is not known and to emphasize the importance of making it known. I think it has been harmful to theoretical physics that parts or aspects of the fundamentals have been skipped over. James

Yes it is only our measurement of time. Our measurement of time is not time. Let me pose the question from a different perspective. There is a clock that keeps a very accurate measurement of time for us based upon some cyclic action. For simplicity, each cycle is named 'one second of measured time'. The point is that the name second is only a name. As you have implied, so far as we can tell we are not affecting the property of time. We are simply working with physical action and its rate of operation. Each cycle of the clock could have been named one 'cycle'. If we compared another frequency of operation to that of the clock, then we would have units of cycle(a)/cycle(:). James

Hi Snoopy, I know your answer is offerred to be genuinely helpful. Thank you for taking the time and effort. However, Clausius' statement was: "It is impossible to construct a device that, operating in a cycle, will produce no effect other than the transference of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body." Disorder is not mentioned. Disorder is a common after effect of the operation of an irreversible engine cycle. The amount of heat that escapes could also be stated as a measure of disorder. But, heat and entropy are not the same thing. The problem is that an increase in entropy usually results in an increase in disorder but not always. [From What is Entropy? "Lets dispense with at lease one popular myth: "Entropy is disorder" is a common enough assertion, but commonality does not make it right. Entropy is not "disorder", although the two can be related to one another. For a good lesson on the traps and pitfalls of trying to assert what entropy is, see Insight into entropy by Daniel F. Styer, American Journal of Physics 68(12): 1090-1096 (December 2000). Styer uses liquid crystals to illustrate examples of increased entropy accompanying increase 'order', quite impossible in the entropy is disorder worldview. In my opinion, no one knows what is entropy. Answers such as: "It is a measure of disorder"; or: "It is a measure of energy no longer available for work by the engine that lost it." are efforts to skirt around the issue, by pointing to some resultant effects. In the Carnot engine, the high heat source loses entropy, but that drop in entropy is accompanied by a loss of heat that is completely converted into work. Entropy is equal to energy divided by temperature. If the energy is lost heat, then it will almost always result in increasing disorder. However, the amount of lost heat can remain the same while the temperature can very. The calculation of entropy would also vary, even though the amount of lost heat and the resulting amount of increase in disorder do not change. The most straightforward answer is that entropy is what the equation says it is. This is an admission that we have the mathematical means to calculate entropy even though we do not know what it is. We do know some common effects resulting from changes in entropy and, as is usually the case, this makes the limited knowledge we have useful. James

Hi Sanctus, The particle half-life is an example that is analogous to the clock problem. The point of this question is to hear from others how time becomes a part of physical action in the universe. Time is not something for which mechanical type tests can be performed. It is not available to be contained, handled, or tested. It seems to me that the adoption of the idea that time is the property that is being altered is an unsubstantiated assumption. There is a theory, but it is not based upon empirical evidence resulting from tests that were performed on 'time'. Anyway, thank you for responding in a cordial manner. James

Under the ideal conditions of the carnot engine, there is no net change in entropy. Under the conditions of a similar operating engine that passes some heat through without converting it to work, there is a net loss of entropy from the high heat source to the low heat source. The equation defining this loss of entropy is describing what specific physical occurrence? This question pertains to thermodynamic entropy. I researched previous threads about entropy; however, I am not asking about informational entropy. I am asking about the physical basis for existence of thermodynamic entropy? This is a physics question. James

Beginning with a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, the rate at which clocks operate changes with altitude and with speed relative to the observer. The question is: What is the cause for this clock dilation? The clock's operation is a physical occurrence. Does empirical evidence indicate the reason for clock dilation? James

Your right. The title was used loosely. So, I interpreted it to include scientists and their hypotheses. But, this clarification is welcome. James

Yes you are correct. I think his theoretical interpretations are incorrect, but, the use of transform equations helped him to forcibly arrive at equations that made his mythical interpretation match, at least mathematically, with empirical evidence. But, here again my opinion about this is for another place and time. Sorry I missed seeing it. I thought you had not answered. I will look back. I think that challenging the theory of time dilation should be easy to accomplish considering that 'time' is not a part of physics equations. The 't' in the equations represents a physical occurance and not 'time'. Anyway, I do not think that you are close minded. I have enjoyed this discussion. Thank you. James

Good challenge! I have written elsewhere about my approach to this problem; however, I recognize that my opinion about that has nothing to do with whether or not science is close minded. All I can offer at this point is to suggest that the 'artificially tightly restricted' view presented by theoretical physics is a low level mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is useful for solving mechanical type problems. I see mechanical type action as being subservient to to a greater type of action that has the potential to produce intelligent life. Purpose is a part of intelligence. I think we need a different kind of thinking that seeks to find the properties that are capable of producing intelligence. Empirically, it cannot be tested for with equipment that can only make mechanical type measurements. It is going to require reasoning at a level that is freed from a materialistic belief system. I do not offer this idea as some sort of clear climatic conclusion to the discussion that has taken place in this thread. It can be ended simply with my contention that progress in this direction is currently hindered by the level of respect lauded upon theoretical physics as representing our most fundamental science. Again, I have written about this elsewhere, but I don't think it belongs in this thread. In any case, I wouldn't even try to accomplish such a thing in short form. You are correct. My interest in this thread had to do only with challenging any declared facts of theoretical physics and exposing scientific close mindedness about physics theory if it existed here. Once we move beyond (I would say become freed from) theoretical physics, then there are no tests about patterns in changes of velocity that I can use to explain purpose, intelligence, and life. It will require logic and understanding that goes beyond the fruits of mechanical apparatus and mathematical models. James

I have to say that I do not know what you mean by fundamentalism. It is not the fundamental existence and behavior of particles that is being challenged. Empirical science will continue to enlighten us. The challenge is to refute claims by scientifically minded people that theory represents reality. Yes we have Einstein's theories. His theories were designed to agree with empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that GPS works. What is surprising is that the success of GPS is used to insist that Einstein's theories are therefore correct. Do you believe that time dilation is a fact? In the face of the supporting empirical evidence, would it be unscientific to challenge the theory of time dilation? James

I think science is very close minded in a way that demonstrates the quote above. It's a good thing - it protects the purity of the discipline. Yes, scientific guesses must agree with experiment. However, this is not sufficient to demonstrate correctness. An incorrect theory can agree with experiment. I am certain that Feyman knew this, but I still think it needs to be pointed out here. I agree with this. however, I would state it as: There is not justification for presenting any of the ideas of theoretical physics as clearly representing reality. It is vulnerable to correction. Perhaps, even extensive correction. Maybe even complete correction. James

If it is outside the realm of science, then I think that is because physics theory has artificially tightly restricted what is the realm of science. in other words, if all that can be tested is whether or not an object follows a certain pattern in its movement, then we have no chance of testing for purpose. Beyond this artificial restriction, it is not unscientific to recognize that the purpose of DNA is to build intelligent life. James

No I am not asking why the electron has a charge? I am asking what is it that physicists know that prompts them to say that there is such a thing as charge. I don't think they have the justification for insisting that electric charge is a fundamental property. I would be here whether or not theoretical physics is correct. I agree that we have what we have. What I dispute is that we have what theoreticdal physicists say we have. This does not mean that I prefer unscientific answers. It means that I think the basis of many conclusions presented to us by theoretical physics are unscientific. I have pointed to what I see as the problem in an earlier message. I said something like this: We see the damage done by theoretical physics in disunity, indefinable properties, and arbitrarily assigned units of measurement. Perhaps it would be helpful to give more specific examples. The arbitrary units of measurement that I speak of include all units except those of distance and time. The indefinable properties are mass, electric charge, and temperature. The disunity is seen in separate fundamental forces, and multiple theories instead of one general theory. Electric charge is a cause. Mass is a cause. I am not speaking about the cause for either one. There does not have to be one. They are the cause, supposedly. I think they are both very vulnerable to challenge as representing causes. I accept the way empirical evidence demonstrates that the universe operates. What I challenge is that we know anything at all about why or how it does what it does. The invented ideas of theoretical physics are too limited and too questionable to be trusted as representing the truth about the nature of the operation of the universe. This quote of yours is an example of declarations that represent a philosophy that you prefer, but clearly cannot be substantiated scientifically. You use the word energy as if it is the magical substance that can produce all these magnificent results including intelligent life. What is energy? What is the empirical evidence that there is a substance that you refer to as energy. What is it about building more complex molecules that gives rise to intelligent life? Do the molecules begin to think? Do the molecules change from lifeless to life giving? We know by observation that these molecules produce intelligent life. It makes a great deal of sense to wonder what are the properties of the molecules that produce such magnificent results. It makes a great deal of sense to doubt that the mechanical properties put forward by theoretical physics lead to this result. It makes more sense to doubt that theoretical physics has anything at all to do with learning why this occurs. It makes the most sense to look for different fundamental properties that demonstrate a logical connection to intelligence and life. That is what I think. James

Hi Alexander, If I may be so bold as to offer advice, this is off topic, but: Life is good. I say that in spite of having experienced tragedy that hurts a lot and never goes away even after many years. I say that in spite of the horrors that take place. The world is a place for each of us to play a role. You can make a good difference and so can I. It is only a matter of deciding that that is the role we choose. Make things better for others to the degree that you can. Advance knowledge to the degree that you can. Cherish freedom even though freedom requires each of us to remain vulnerable. Use freedom to make the kind of difference that lives after you. The world is not a completely terrible place because there are a great many people that use their time here to make it better. Join with them. They are worth knowing and so are you. I do not think you are boring; I think rather that I did not take the time to get to know you. james

Look. If you don't want this to go on, that is fine. I can end it immediately. Apparently I see the meaning of the topic of this thread differently than do you. I think there is close mindedness. What am I supposed to do? Am I just supposed to say that single sentence? Is it improper to attempt to demonstrate it? Or, is it that you really do not think there is merit in challenging physics theory? Do you think the universe really is the product of four fundamental forces that cause changes of velocity? Do you wonder how molecules acquire purpose that goes far beyond their own mechanical style properties? Is this question out of line? Is it unscientific? Has science already explained this phenomenon? Is my use of the word 'purpose' unscientific? James

I think that intelligence had a cause and that cause cannot be found in theory that defines the universe as being the product of mechanical type forces. I think science can be and should be the way to learn about the operation of the universe. However, more to your point, I do think science makes claims, in its theoretical analysis, that it cannot back up. I think there are many assumptions included in physics theory right from the start. A few years ago, I attempted to begin to show this in a message I wrote concerning the theoretical interpretation of f=ma. I see clear problems there and additional problems as theory is expanded. The subject of this thread is: Is science close minded? In the field of theoretical physics, I think that at times and in some important areas it may be challenged as being close minded. I think, with regard to science, close mindedness is a temporary condition. I do think in the end truth wins out. However, close mindedness can cause us to take a much longer time to learn the truth. Do you think that time dilation is a fact? James