[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Jul 31 08:08:27 PDT 2017
Wolf,
attached I have added here the original paper of Einstein from 1905 as a
facsimile (so in German). I cannot find your equation in his paper.
Regarding the change of c in a gravitational field: I have given you
several times the equation for that. So not a point of discussion. But
you complained in the other mail that you have asked me half a dozen
times for a measurement of the speed of light, without response as you
said. For this I have given you the reference to my earlier mail where I
referred to and explained the permanent measurement of c in particle
accelerators, particularly in synchrotrons. Also in synchrotrons it
follows from the finiteness of c that the mass /m /increases with an
increasing energy of the particles.
Further questions?
Albrecht
Am 31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905 Paper , I gave the book
> back to the Library and will have to order it again to verify exactly
> the context Einstiein used it. It may be I copied the formula wrong
> and Einstein actually wrote c = c_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 ) which the
> gives c^2 = c_0 ^2 +v^2 .
>
> In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and takes
> the small velocity approximation one gets mc^2 = mc_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2
> /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) =~ mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2
>
> I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic
> Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2 if mc_0 ^2 = -GmMu/Ru
> . So I'm saying if we simply recognize that a mass "m" even stationary
> has a gravitational potential inside the mass shell of the universe
> then at least to terms v4/c4 a completely classic model actually gives
> us all of the experimentally verified Relativity predictions.
>
> Furthermore if we write mc^2 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )
> then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m_0 or c_0 one apples
> the SRT correction to. You like applying it to the mass and say that
> mass increases. I thought it makes more sense to apply it to the speed
> of light
>
> Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins formula or not the
> argument I was trying to make is the same. The speed of light depends
> upon the gravitational potential in which the measurement of the speed
> of light is made, it is not constant
>
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle accelerator
>> and particularly a synchrotron is a permanent check for the speed of
>> light, and in particular also a check of the Lorentz transformation
>> where it describes the behaviour of an object being accelerated
>> towards c. And that a behaviour of physics regarding c different from
>> the Lorentz transformation would require a different design of
>> particle accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream regarded the
>> measured value of the speed of light is permanently confirmed.
>>
>> And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following equation for
>> the speed of light:
>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ).
>> What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there exist
>> conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I have referred.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> 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-mailwolf 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 atWolf 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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/626c96fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1905_17_891-921.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1971299 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/626c96fd/attachment.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list