[General] Nature of light test

[Wolfgang Baer]

Michael:

You are probably right. Lets see if this gets posted. I've always 
wondered why my own posts never show up , I guess the assumption is that 
we know our own posts, though that requires a lot of book keeping.

Lets see if it this test gets posted.

Thanks

Wolf

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

On 2/11/2018 6:55 PM, Michael Ambroselli wrote:
> Perfectly normal, I'd say. There are often weeks where nothing is happening.
> I've checked and there do not seem to be any technical problems. And nobody is complaining that posts aren't getting through. It's probably the super bowl and the olympics if I'd have to guess (:
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:23:53 +0000
> "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Kindly look into it. Michael.
>> Has the discussion slowed down, or Baer got disconnected.
>> Chandra.
>>
>> From: Wolfgang Baer [mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 5:36 PM
>> To: Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> Subject: Re: FQXi Essay on "Fundamental"
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> I have not gotten a Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> since 1/24/2018
>>
>> Is there a problem with the site ?
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>
>> Research Director
>>
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>
>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>> On 2/8/2018 4:24 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>> Thanks, Wolf:
>> I have started reading your essay. I will make time to read through and give some good grading points.
>> Chandra.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 10:30 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>> Dear Chandra:
>>
>> The FQXI essay you sent me  title “ The concept of “fundamental” must keep evolving “ is very interesting I believe a very
>>
>>   good topic for our discussion group as well as complimenting my own submission title “Adding the Observer to the
>>
>> Foundations of Physics by Wolfgang Baer”
>>
>>     https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>>
>> I only have my URL but recommend anyone interested can navigate to your paper which is listed alphabetically by last name.
>> Now to my comments: Your introduction states the general principles most of us in our discussion group agree on, and I like it. But doubt whether the references to MDM-E and IPM-E, which I am familiar with,will make sense to a general audience.
>>
>>   The basic assumption is stated in section IIc.  “There exists only one physically stationary inertial frame of reference in this universe, which is the stationary CTF. The Complex Tension Filed (CTF)” and a bit earlier you state  “This is where we introduce a new physical postulate. The basic elementary particles (electrons. protons, neutrons, etc.) are some form of localized complex EM waves, executing harmonic oscillations, but in the shape of a doughnut or similar vortex-like stable structure. The stability of these field-particles comes from their resonant or in-phase self-looped oscillations.”
>>
>>   I think this is a great idea and one that many of our group is essentially following as you provided a reference #4  to our discussion group. This leads me to a question I’ve had for a long time, Is there a reference preferably a paper you can send that will show how stable field-particles can be created from CTF properties. I agree donut like vortecies are a good candidate but is there physics involved or is the existence of such stable self generating oscillations an additional postulate?
>>
>>   Lets assume field particles exist. On page 5 we get to some thing very interesting “Within a given material medium, closely spaced assembly of field-particles, the effective value of εμ increases, thereby reducing the velocity of EM waves to cmed. = (1/εμ)1/2 within this assembly.” This to me sounds like an aether definition as an underlying assembly of space cells (you call field-particles) similar to Bohm’s underlying space cell as infinitesimal clocks.
>>
>>   Here we transition to My paper and concept that we physical beings are an aggregation of fundamental space particles which makes us a material based space and in that sense each of us is a Universe of our own experiences we believe is the real one. I’ve been trying to get this across to Albrecht for a long time. We are a closely spaced assembly of field-particles in your terminology. and this assembly of elementary oscillations is a field of self-explanatory measurement activities in which the speed of light is always a constant characteristic of ourselves.
>>
>>   I know it sounds a bit odd if you are used to thinking there is an independent external world that we observe through the windows of our senses- but it is very likely that we are a self-explanatory measurement cycle which contains within itself the appearances we experience as every day objects and these appearances my be aggregations of filed-particle states and you have identified the physics. So I’m excited.
>>
>>   Lastly I have a question about the experiment. Is the earth not a satellite moving through space at high velocity in a direction determined by the cosmic background radiation red /blue shift? And if so would your experiment not simply be a Michelson Morely type   where the satellite velocity relative to the direction of the pulsed laser and detector array is changed by rotating the beam on which these end points are mounted. So should we not see a relative phase shift when the slate slab on mercury is rotated. Or are you assuming pulses are different from phase and in today’s world we can actually measure pulse deviations?
>>
>>
>>
>> Great Paper
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>
>> Research Director
>>
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>
>> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>> On 2/4/2018 4:48 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>> Wolf:
>> I have just accessed the abstract of your essay and read it.
>> It is excellent and well written.
>> I will grade it after read the full article.
>>
>> In the meantime, here is my article to look at, if you are interested.
>> Fundamentally, I see that we are essentially in agreement.
>> However, our approaches to create a better path is just slightly different.
>> But, that is very healthy since we are all “Blinds trying to make model of the Cosmic Elephant”.
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>>