[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