[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Jul 28 23:21:02 PDT 2017


Clarification:

I have submitted equations in which the approximation of ( +2mm_l G/r 
-2mc^2 - mv^2 )^-1/2 =^~ ^1/2 mv^2 + mc^2 -mm_l G/r

So that simply by recognizing that mc^2 is  the classic potential energy 
inside a mass shell  -m *Mu* G/Ru  ofthe Universe we get a very simple 
cosmology that is completely consistent with all known experiments - the 
assumption is simply that the speed of light as a surrogate  for the 
speed of all electromagnetic phenomena is dependent upon the 
gravitational potential which was shown by Shapiro's experiments. and 
light bending.and clock slow downs. I interpret  c^2 is the universe 
escape velocity.

This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but only that if we 
could get outside the mass shell in flat space where the gravitational 
energy of the universe mass is zero the speed of light is some reference 
c_0 ^2    In both case the speed of lighjt and the energy is only 
determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is important is the 
relative energy or speed of light

I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent physicist doing 
physics. I'm only claiming that the the first order approximation is all 
I know that has been experimentally verified length contraction and 
close to speed of light experiments are only verified through circular 
reasoning

I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that show otherwise 
a half dozen times but am always ignored


wolf

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

On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Chandra,
>
> you have written here a lot of good and true considerations; with most 
> of them I can agree. However two comments from my view:
>
> 1.) The speed of light:
> The speed of light when /measured in vacuum /shows always a constant 
> value. Einstein has taken this result as a fact in so far that the 
> real speed of light is constant. However if we follow the Lorentzian 
> interpretation of relativity then only the /measured /c is constant. 
> It looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is in motion, 
> the instruments change their indications so that the result shows the 
> known constant value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian relativity 
> because in this version the relativistic phenomena can be deduced from 
> known physical behaviour. So, it is true physics.
>
> There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He has in the 
> preceding discussion here given an equation, according to which the 
> speed of light can go up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in 
> conflict with any measurement.
>
> 2) The quantisation of light:
> This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And I have 
> (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which was Compton 
> scattering at protons.  An electron of defined energy was converted 
> into a photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small 
> angles (so almost no influence) and then re-converted into an 
> electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it reproduced quite 
> exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy of the originals 
> electron. This was repeated for electrons of different energies. - I 
> do not see any explanation for this process without the assumption 
> that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined energy, not 
> a light wave.
>
> How does this fit into your understanding?
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
> PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?
>
>
>
> Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> You have said it well:
>>
>> /“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the 
>> Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant 
>> speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. 
>> If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as 
>> the speed of Now…”. /
>>
>> Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally flawed postulate by the 
>> theoretician Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”. 
>> Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of logically 
>> self-consistent mathematical theories and then match them up with 
>> “Gedanken” experiments! We know that in the real world, we know that 
>> the velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and the velocity 
>> of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of riding 
>> the crest of a light wave inspired him to construct SRT and sold all 
>> the mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional. Out of the 
>> “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the universe could be 5, or, 
>> 7, or 11, or, 13, …. dimensional system where many of the dimensions 
>> are “folded in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a measurable 
>> physical parameter. We can contract or dilate frequency of diverse 
>> oscillators, using proper physical influence, not the running time. 
>> Frequency of oscillators help us measure a period (or time interval).
>>
>> Wise human thinkers have recognized this “Hallucination” problem from 
>> ancient times, which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how 
>> five blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model of the 
>> Cosmic Elephant and then keep on iterating the model ad infinitum, or 
>> (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of external objects projected 
>> inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our 
>> contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically and feel “belonging 
>> to the sociaety”. The result is the current sad state of moribund 
>> physics thinking. Fortunately, many people have started challenging 
>> this moribund status quo with papers, books, and web forums.
>>
>> So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in physics coming within a 
>> few decades! Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” 
>> of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical 
>> engineer ever try to propagate an “indivisible quanta”; they always 
>> propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier 
>> monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor is a causal 
>> signal. [I have been trying to correct this fundamental confusion 
>> through my book, “Causal Physics”.]
>>
>> Coming back to our methodology of thinking, I have defined an 
>> iterative approach in the Ch.12 of the above book. I have now 
>> generalized the approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to 
>> remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution 
>> Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].
>>
>> However, one can immediately bring a challenge. If all our 
>> interpretations are cooked up by our neural network for survival; 
>> then who has the authority to define objective reality? Everybody, 
>> but collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.
>>
>> Let us realize the fact that the seeing “color” is an interpretation 
>> by the brain. It is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic 
>> interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in quantitatively 
>> defining the subtlety of color variation of any magnificent color 
>> painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an 
>> objective parameter; but the frequency is (not wavelength, though!). 
>> One can now recognize the subtle difference, from seeing “color”, to 
>> */quantifying energy content per frequency interval./* This is 
>> “objective” science determined by instruments without a “mind”, which 
>> is reproducible outside of human interpretations.
>>
>> And, we have already mastered this technology quite a bit. The 
>> biosphere exists. It has been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 
>> billion years without the intervention of humans. We are a very late 
>> product of this evolution. This is an objective recognition on our 
>> part! Our, successful evolution needed “instantaneous color” 
>> recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier 
>> stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a species. And we 
>> now have become a pest in the biosphere, instead of becoming the 
>> caretaker of it for our own long-term future. */This is the sad break 
>> in our wisdom./* This is why I am promoting the concept, “Urgency of 
>> Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps generate a 
>> common, but perpetually evolving thinking platform for all thinkers, 
>> whether working to understand Nature’s Engineering (Physics, 
>> Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social Engineering 
>> (Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General 
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine but the 
>> transcript is available and Anl Seth states what many people studying 
>> the human psyche as well as eastern philosophy have said for 
>> centuries , Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is built 
>> upon that hallucination, but it works so well, or does it?
>>
>> However  as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine contends 
>> https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is
>>
>> What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a file icon may 
>> only be a symbol of what is real on the disk, but these icons as well 
>> as the "hallucinations" are connected to some reality and we must 
>> take them seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes the disk which 
>> may have disastrous consequences.
>>
>> For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts route and try 
>> to understand the universe and photons first based upon the idea that 
>> it is independently real and then solve the human consciousness 
>> problem or we can take the opposite approach and rebuild a  physics 
>> without the independent physical reality assumption and see if we 
>> cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory. Concentrating on 
>> finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and 
>> the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of light 
>> assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is 
>> such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed 
>> of Now , a property we individually apply to all our observations.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>
>> On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>
>>     Dear colleagues:
>>
>>     Lately there has been continuing discussion on the role of
>>     observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.
>>
>>     We must guide ourselves to understand and model the universe
>>     without human mind shaping the cosmic system and its working
>>     rules. This suggestion comes from the fact that our own logic
>>     puts the universe to be at least 13 billion years old, while we,
>>     in the human form, have started evolving barely 5 million years
>>     ago (give or take).
>>
>>     However, we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined and
>>     decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate perpetual
>>     iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on advancing. This is
>>     well justified in the following TED-talk.
>>
>>     Enjoy:
>>
>>     https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image
>>
>>     Chandra.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>
>>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>>     Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>>     </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170728/e494e057/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list