[General] Wolf's notes

[Wolfgang Baer]

John:

Yes game changing predictions would be the holy grail

At this stage of development I'm only at the stage of identifying errors 
and simplifications in physics that lead to alternative explanations 
based on the inclusion of the observer as a physical participant in our 
experiments

However your reference to the Greek fires of light illuminating the 
world reminds me of reading Leonardo daVinchi's notebooks when he 
pointed out the speed of thought as opposite the speed of light. Or 
Licrucias(SP) the first Roman scientist asking why ores bend when they 
are put in water.

There was a time when we understood the difference between what we see 
and the reality we believe that causes our appearances. Light travels 
from surfaces into our eyes and we project the surface back out there. 
As long as we collapse these two separate phenomena into one , and loose 
the ability to distinguish between what we see and how we explain it - 
then we will be making mistakes in our theories

Right now I'm just overwhelmed with the magnitude of mistakes

But I have pursued some game changing experimental possibilities - Eric 
Reiter's experiment with loading theory insead of photons is one, 
cahill's experiment connecting Z-diode random fluctuations with 
gravitational flow fluctuations is another either or both would destroy 
both quantum and relativity theory, but so far they have not been 
carried out rigorously, rebels do not get a lot of funding , it takes time.

Best wishes,

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 7/19/2017 9:53 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf, Viv, Albrecht:
> We're approaching the philosophy of physics. I suggest physics is 
> studied to be useful for humankind to survive. To be useful, the 
> knowledge must reflect observations - the workings of the universe 
> (nature).  Usefulness is demonstrated by prediction. A game changing 
> prediction is one that rejects current models, also. So the questions 
> for any new model is "what is the prediction" and "did the observation 
> happen after the prediction".
> Humanity doesn't know how to build a universe. Therefore, our science 
> is flawed.
> Ancient Greeks suggest the eyes had fires in them. These fires 
> illuminated the universe (a few thousand light years in diameter) upon 
> opening a person's eyes. That is, emitted photons sent out from the 
> eyes, interacted with the universe, were reflected to the eyes, 
> modified something in eyes, which sent signals to the brain. Now, the 
> prevailing opinion is the eyes are passive receptors that receive 
> photons that modify the chemicals in the eye cells. I suggest the 
> definition of "observation" is the crux of the discussion - seems you 
> each are using different different definitions.
> So, Wolf, what game changing predictions?
> Hodge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170720/bcdb85cf/attachment.htm>