[General] Wolf's notes
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jul 20 21:24:17 PDT 2017
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>
More information about the General
mailing list