[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Feb 26 19:46:09 PST 2018


Albrecht:

I have a tremendous aversion to believing that the observer (unless we 
are talking quantum effects where measurement interferes with the object 
measured ) can have any effect on the independent “whatever it is” out 
there. But physicists often confuse measurement results with physical 
realities.

Regarding “*The relative velocity between charges does NOT determine the 
magnetic field.”*

Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the force between two 
current segments is oin differential form

d*F12*= - I1*I2 (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3

now the current is charge q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and q2**v2 = *I1**dl1 
*substituting means the magnetic force between the two charges is 
dependent on the dot product between the two velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).

Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks about velocity dependent 
potentials p19

And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x B12 while the magnetic 
field is dependent on v! , so the force is dependent on two velocities.

Now your statement ‘*But the magnetic field depends on the relative 
velocity between the observer and the one charge and the observer and 
the other charge. Where "observer" means the measuring tool.” *Is 
certainly true because one can always define one coordinate frame that 
moves with velocity of the first charge and a second coordinate frame 
that moves with the velocity of the second charge. So in these two 
coordinate frames each one would say there is no B field.

However I see both charges in *one coordinate frame* and that is how the 
experiments leading to the force equations were conducted. So I question 
whether your assumption that there are two coordinate frames and I 
assume you would like to connected by the Lorenz transforms reflects 
physical reality.

I reiterate the concept of fields even the coulomb fieldis passed upon 
the measured force between a test charge Qt and another charge Qn. So 
that the total force on the test charge is

F =~SUM over all n (Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )

And it is possible to introduce a field

E = SUM over all n (Qn / Rtn^2 )

As that F= Qt * E

Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume that physically E is a 
property of space rather than simply the sum of charge to charge 
interactions that would happen if a test charge were at that space is a 
counter factual. And not consistent with the quantum photon theory.

Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons are false 
interpretations of charge to charge interactions.


that is for another discussion


best wishes


wolf

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

On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> my comments and explanations in the text below.
>
>
> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I think I understand your arguments since this is what is generally 
>> taught, however I have always been uncomfortable with the statements 
>> involving “observer”.
>>
>> So I question your statement “The different amount seen by the 
>> observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related Lorentz 
>> transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the 
>> observer.”
>>
>> Now ancient experiments discovered that there are two reciprocal 
>> forces between charges. The relative distance R gives the Coulomb 
>> force F_E and the relative velocity gives the Magnetic force F_B
>>
>> Now if these are independent entities whose existence does not depend 
>> upon any observation made by the observer (until we get to quantum 
>> measurements) . /This means the physics is fixed /and so are the 
>> parameters. Any measurement made by any coordinate frame when 
>> properly processed for its own distortions will result in the same 
>> parameters, so R,V, F_B , F_E ^and yes the speed of light must be 
>> constant.
>>
>> If the measurement results differ either we do not have objective 
>> measurement independent reality or else there is an unaccounted 
>> artifact in the measurement process.
>>
> There is an error in your above arguments. The relative velocity 
> between charges does NOT determine the magnetic field. But the 
> magnetic field depends on the relative velocity between the observer 
> and the one charge and the observer and the other charge. Where 
> "observer" means the measuring tool.
>
> The entities are not independent in so far as any observer will see 
> them in a different way. That is not a consequence of quantum 
> mechanics but very simply the consequence of the fact that in a moving 
> system the tools change (like rulers contract and clocks are slowed 
> down) and so their measurement results differ from a tool measuring 
> while being at rest. This is the reason that we need a Lorentz 
> transformation to compare physical entities in one moving frame to 
> entities in another moving frame.
>>
>> I and QM claims there is no objective measurement independent reality.
>>
> That may be the case but has nothing to do with our discussion here.
>>
>> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame dilates and shrinks so that when 
>> raw measurements are made and no correction is applied we may 
>> notobserve a magnetic field but instead a different Coulomb field so 
>> that the actual result on the object measured remains the same only 
>> the names of the causes have been changed.
>>
> You are permanently referring to coordinate frames. But we are 
> treating here physical facts and not mathematical ones. So coordinates 
> should be omitted as an argument as I have proposed it earlier.
>>
>> Now consider looking at the same two charges from an arbitrary 
>> coordinate frame. then in that frame the two charges will have wo 
>> velocities V1 and V2 but there will always be a difference V
>>
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>>
>> I contend that it does not matter what frame you chose cannot get rid 
>> of the relative velocity. The only way you can get rid of the 
>> magnetic field is if there was no relative velocity in the first 
>> palace. And there never was a magnetic field in the physics.
>>
> As soon as the observer moves in the same frame, i.e. with the same 
> speed vector as one of the charges, he does not see a magnetic field. 
> In the deduction of the magnetic field which I have attached (from a 
> talk at a conference last year) the magnetic force is defined by the 
> equation:
>
> where v and u are the speeds of two charges, q1 and q2, , with respect 
> to the observer. y is the distance and gamma the Lorentz factor in the 
> set up shown.
>>
>> Therefore your further conclusion “As soon as an observer moves with 
>> one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to the frame of one of 
>> the charges, then there is no magnetic field for him.” Is only true 
>> if there was no magnetic field in the first place, a very special case.
>>
>> We must be very careful not to confuse the actual physics in a 
>> situation with the way we look at it.
>>
> I guess that you know the Coriolis force. This force is somewhat 
> similar to magnetism. It is in effect for one observer but not for 
> another one depending on the observer's motion. And there is nothing 
> mysterious about it, and also quantum mechanics is not needed for an 
> explanation.
>
> In your logic you would have to say: If there is no Coriolis force 
> then there is no inertial mass. But that is clearly not the case.
>>
>> If we apply the same analysis to the Michelson Morley experiment I 
>> think we will also find that there never was a fringe shift in the 
>> physics. The physics states charges interact with other charges, 
>> basta. Introducing fields and then attributing what has always been a 
>> summation of many charge effects on one test charge onto a property 
>> of empty space is simply a convenient mathematical trick that hides 
>> the physical reality.
>>
> The MM experiment is easily explained by the fact that there is 
> contraction in the direction of motion. Nothing more is needed to 
> explain the null-result. In the view of Einstein space contracts and 
> in the view of Lorentz the apparatus contracts as the internal fields 
> contract. And the latter is a known phenomenon in physics.
>>
>>
>> I further submit this as an argument that mass and charge are 
>> fundamental physics and if there is to be a CTF it is the tension 
>> that holds mass and charge together when electro-magentic forces 
>> operating on charge densities and gravito-inertial forces operating 
>> on mass densities are not balanced and pulls mass and charge apart. I 
>> further submit the the resulting fluctuations in the mass-charge 
>> densities leads to CTF propagating patterns that are an ontologically 
>> defensible interpretation of Schroedingers Wave function.
>>
> An indication that mass is not fundamental is the fact that mass can 
> be converted into energy. On the other hand charge cannot be converted 
> into energy; this can be taken as an argument that it is fundamental.
>>
> Anything still controversial? Then please explain.
> Albrecht
>>
>> Tell me why I’m wrong
>>
>> Wolf
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> If two electrons move side by side, the main force between them is 
>>> of course the electrostatic one. But there is an additional 
>>> contribution to the force which is measured in the frame of an 
>>> observer at rest (like the one of Millikan). In the frame of the 
>>> moving electrons (maybe they belong to the same frame) there is only 
>>> the electrostatic force, true. The different amount seen by the 
>>> observer can be calculated by the use of the force-related Lorentz 
>>> transformation - from the frame of the electrons to the frame of the 
>>> observer.
>>>
>>> If the oil-drop chamber is in steady motion this has primarily no 
>>> influence. Important is the motion state of the observer. If the 
>>> observer is at rest with respect to the moving oil-drops (and so of 
>>> the electrons), he will notice a contribution of magnetism. Any 
>>> motion of the chamber does not matter for this fact.
>>>
>>> In general magnetism is visible for an observer who is in motion 
>>> with respect to both charges under consideration. As soon as an 
>>> observer moves with one charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect to 
>>> the frame of one of the charges, then there is no magnetic field for 
>>> him.
>>>
>>> Your example of two compass needles is a more complex one even if it 
>>> does not look so. To treat this case correctly we have to take into 
>>> account the cause of the magnetism of the needle, that means of the 
>>> circling charges in the atoms (in Fe). If we would do this then - 
>>> seen from our own frame - both groups of charges are moving, the 
>>> charges in the conductor and also the charges in the needle's atoms. 
>>> So as both are moving with respect to the observer, this is the 
>>> cause for a magnetic field between both objects.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht: Your point is well taken. Not being expert in magnetism, 
>>>> I need to spend more time on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> However, let me pose a question to think.
>>>>
>>>> If two electrons are trapped in two side by side but separate 
>>>> Millikan oil drops, the two electrons feel each other’s static 
>>>> E-field, but no magnetic field. If the oil-drop chamber was given a 
>>>> steady velocity, could Millikan have measured the presence of a 
>>>> magnetic field due to the moving electrons (“current”), which would 
>>>> have been dying out as the chamber moved further away? This 
>>>> experiment can be conceived in many different ways and can be 
>>>> executed. Hence, this is not a pure “Gedanken” experiment. I am 
>>>> sure, some equivalent experiment has been done by somebody. Send me 
>>>> the reference, if you can find one.
>>>>
>>>> Are two parallel current carrying conductors deflecting magnetic 
>>>> needles (undergraduate experiment) different from two independent 
>>>> electrons moving parallel to each other?
>>>>
>>>> I have just re-phrased Einstein’s example that you have given below.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Chandra.
>>>>
>>>> *From:*General 
>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
>>>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:26 PM
>>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field 
>>>> stable particles
>>>>
>>>> Chandra,
>>>>
>>>> I like very much what you have written here. Particularly what you 
>>>> say about "time" which physically means oscillations. That is what 
>>>> one should keep in mind when thinking about relativity.
>>>>
>>>> However in one point I have to object. That is your judgement of 
>>>> the parameter µ. I think that it is a result from the historical 
>>>> fact that magnetism was detected long time earlier than 
>>>> electricity. So magnetism plays a great role in our view of physics 
>>>> which does not reflect its role there. We know since about 100 
>>>> years that magnetism is not a primary phenomenon but an apparent 
>>>> effect, a side effect of the electric field which is caused by the 
>>>> finiteness of c. If c would be infinite there would not be any 
>>>> magnetism. This is given by the equation c^2 = (1/ϵµ)which you have 
>>>> mentioned. This equation should be better written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) 
>>>> to reflect this physical fact, the dependency of the magnetism on c.
>>>>
>>>> The symmetry between electricity and magnetism is suggested by 
>>>> Maxwell's equation. These equations are mathematically very elegant 
>>>> and well usable in practice. But they do not reflect the physical 
>>>> reality. Easiest visible is the fact that we have electrical 
>>>> monopoles but no magnetic monopoles. Einstein has described this 
>>>> fact by saying: Whenever an observer is in a magnetic field, he can 
>>>> find a motion state so that the magnetic field disappears. - This 
>>>> is as we know not possible for an electric field.
>>>>
>>>> I think that we have discussed this earlier. Do you remember?
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>>>
>>>>     /“We nee//d a geometry in which both space and time are curved
>>>>     back on themselves to provide a donut in which the forces Fem,
>>>>     Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at each action
>>>>     quanta. /
>>>>
>>>>     /Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking
>>>>     about??”/
>>>>
>>>>     Yes, Wolf, we need to model mathematically the “twists and
>>>>     turns” of different intrinsic potential gradients embedded in
>>>>     CTF (Complex Tension Field) to create stationary self-looped
>>>>     oscillations (*/field-particles/*). Maxwell achieved that for
>>>>     the propagating linear excitations using his brilliant
>>>>     observations of using the double differentiation – giving us
>>>>     the EM wave equation. We need to find non-propagating
>>>>     (stationary – Newton’s first law) self-looped oscillations –
>>>>     the in-phase ones will be stable, others will “break apart”
>>>>     with different life-times depending upon how far they are from
>>>>     the in-phase closed-loop conditions. The successes of the
>>>>     mathematical oscillatory dynamic model could be judged by the
>>>>     number of predicted properties the theory can find for the
>>>>     */field-particles,/* which we have measured so far. The
>>>>     physical CTF must remain stationary holding 100% of the cosmic
>>>>     energy.
>>>>
>>>>         However, I would not attempt to keep the primacy of
>>>>     Relativity by trying to keep the Space-Time 4-D concept intact.
>>>>     If we want to capture the ontological reality; we must imagine
>>>>     and visualize the potential */foundational/* physical process
>>>>     and represent that with a set of algebraic symbols and call
>>>>     them the primary parameters of “different grades”. During
>>>>     constructing mathematical theories, it is of prime importance
>>>>     to introduce consciously this concept of “primary”, vs.
>>>>     “secondary”, vs. “tertiary”, etc., physical parameters related
>>>>     to any observable physical phenomenon. The physical parameter
>>>>     that dictates the core existence of an entity in nature should
>>>>     be considered as primary. However, it is not going to be easy
>>>>     because of the complexities in the different interaction
>>>>     processes – different parameters take key role in transferring
>>>>     the energy in different interactions. Besides, our ignorance is
>>>>     still significantly broad compared to the “validated” knowledge
>>>>     we have gathered about our universe. Here is a glaring example.
>>>>     νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If I am doing atomic physics, ν is of primary
>>>>     importance because of the quantum resonance with ν and the QM
>>>>     energy exchange rule is “hν”.   “λ” changes from medium to
>>>>     medium. If I am doing Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for free space, are
>>>>     of primary significance; even though people tend to use “c”,
>>>>     while missing out the fundamental roles of ϵ and µ as some of
>>>>     the core building blocks of the universe. Funny thing is that
>>>>     the ϵ and µ of free space were recognized well before Maxwell
>>>>     synthesized Electromagnetism.
>>>>
>>>>         With this background, I want underscore that the “running
>>>>     time, “t” is of critical importance in our formulation of the
>>>>     dynamic universe. And, yet “t’ is not a directly measurable
>>>>     physical parameter of any object in this universe. What we
>>>>     measure is really the frequency, or its inverse, the
>>>>     oscillation periods of different physical oscillators in this
>>>>     universe. So, frequency can be dilated or contracted by
>>>>     controlling the ambient physical parameter of the environment
>>>>     that surrounds and INFLUENCES the oscillator. The running time
>>>>     cannot be dilated or contracted; even though Minkowsky
>>>>     introduced this “dilation” concept. This is the reason why I
>>>>     have been pushing for the introduction in physics thinking the
>>>>     Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E).
>>>>
>>>>     Chandra.
>>>>
>>>>     *From:*General
>>>>     [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>>>     Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:56 PM
>>>>     *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>>>     stable particles
>>>>
>>>>     Candra:
>>>>
>>>>      Let’s consider your tension filed is a medium underlying the
>>>>     experience of space composed of charge and mass density spread
>>>>     out in the cross-section of a time loop.. Coordinate frame
>>>>     cells of /small enough/ sizes can be described by constant
>>>>     enough mass and charge densities in each cell. For small enough
>>>>     cells the mass and charge values concentrated at their centers
>>>>     may be used in stead of the densities. The resulting field of
>>>>     center values can take any pattern that satisfies the extended
>>>>     dAlambert principle. Besides the classic electro-magnetic Fem
>>>>     and gravito-inertial force Fgi I postulate forces tat hold
>>>>     charge and mass together Fcm, Fmc. This condition assures mass
>>>>     charge centers in each cell appear at locations of balanced
>>>>     forces.  Each pattern which satisfies this condition represents
>>>>     a static state of the loop in which the patterns are fixed for
>>>>     the lifetime of the loop.
>>>>
>>>>     **
>>>>
>>>>     *The Charge-Mass Separation Vector and Equilibrium States*
>>>>
>>>>     The physical size of the space is its volume. The  volume (Vol)
>>>>     of space is the sum of the infinitesimal volumes dVol of  each
>>>>     of the cells composing that space “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”.
>>>>     These infinitesimal volumes are calculated from the mass-charge
>>>>     density extensions in each cell when viewed externally as shown
>>>>     in figure 4.3-3a . The physical volume depends upon the mass
>>>>     charge separation pattern of the equilibrium state the system
>>>>     being modeled exists in.
>>>>
>>>>                 In CAT the extension of a cell can be calculated as
>>>>     follows. In each cell the distance between the center of charge
>>>>     and mass is a vector d*ζ.* The projection of this vector onto
>>>>     the degrees of freedom directions available for the charge and
>>>>     mass to move in the generalized coordinate space allows us to
>>>>     expansion this vector as,
>>>>
>>>>     Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t * + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y *∙u_y *+
>>>>     dζ_z *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>>>>
>>>>     **where the *u_f *’s are the unit vectors. A space limited to
>>>>     Cartesian 3-space is characterized by three x,y,z directions,
>>>>     but CAT models a generalized space that encompasses all sensor
>>>>     modalities not only the optical ones.
>>>>
>>>>                 The volume of a cell calculated from the diagonal
>>>>     expansion vector “*dζ”* by multiplying all non zero coefficients,
>>>>
>>>>     Eq. 4.3-2                     dVol =  dζ_t *∙*dζ_x *∙*dζ_y
>>>>     *∙*dζ_z *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>>>>
>>>>                 The shape of this volume is determined by the
>>>>     direction of the expansion vector which in turn is determined
>>>>     by the direction and strength of forces pulling the charge and
>>>>     mass apart. The direction of pull depends upon the number of
>>>>     dimensions available in the generalized coordinates of the
>>>>     media. The forces must be in equilibrium but exact equilibrium
>>>>     pattern depends upon which global loop equilibrium state “Ζ”
>>>>     the event being modeled is in.
>>>>
>>>>                 In the simplest equilibrium state the masses and
>>>>     charges are collocated. This implies the internal forward
>>>>     propagating in time forces F_cm ,F_mc , and backward
>>>>     propagating in time force F_mc *,F_cm * are zero, and if there
>>>>     are no internal force pulling the charges and masses together
>>>>     then sum of the remaining exterior gravito-electric forces
>>>>     pulling the charge and mass apart must separately be zero
>>>>     precisely at the collocation point. A trivial condition that
>>>>     satisfies these equations is when all forces are zero. In this
>>>>     case there is no action in the media and no action for
>>>>     expanding the coordinate frame defining a volume of space. We
>>>>     are back to a formless blob of zero volume, where all charges
>>>>     and masses are at the same point. This is the absolute ground
>>>>     state of material, one level of something above nothing.  The
>>>>     big bang before the energy of action flow is added.
>>>>
>>>>     To exemplify the methods we consider an equilibrium state of a
>>>>     single isolated cell whose only degree of freedom is the time
>>>>     direction. This means the volume in all space directions are
>>>>     infinitesimally small and the volume can be considered a single
>>>>     line of extension “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along the time
>>>>     direction as shown in the god’s eye perspective of figure
>>>>     4.3-6. In this situation we can consider charges and masses to
>>>>     be point particles. Forces as well as action can only propagate
>>>>     along the material length of the line time line represented in
>>>>     space as “Qw”. We now list the sequence of changes that can
>>>>     propagate through around the equilibrium positions indicated by
>>>>     numbers in parenthesis.
>>>>
>>>>     (1)The upper charge is pushed from its equilibrium position
>>>>     (filled icon) forward along the time line
>>>>
>>>>     (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on the left charge pushing it
>>>>     forward while feeling a reaction force “Fem*” that retards it
>>>>     back to its equilibrium position
>>>>
>>>>     (3)While the left charge is moved from equilibrium it exerts an
>>>>     internal “Fcm” force on the bottom mass while feeling a
>>>>     reaction force “Fcm*” which  returns it to equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>>     (4)While the bottom mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
>>>>     force “Fgi” on the right mass while feeling a reaction force
>>>>     “Fgi*”  which returns it to equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>>     (5)While the right mass is moved from equilibrium it exerts a
>>>>     force “Fmc” on the upper charge while feeling a reaction force
>>>>     “Fmc*”  which returns it to equilibrium. We are now back to (1).
>>>>
>>>>     If the system is isolated there is no dissipation into other
>>>>     degrees of freedom and the oscillation continues to move as a
>>>>     compression wave around the “Qw” time line circumference
>>>>     forever. The graph however is static and shows a fixed amount
>>>>     of action indicated by the shaded arrows around the time line.
>>>>     Motion in “block” models is produced by the velocity of the
>>>>     observer or model operator as he moves around the time line.
>>>>     From our god’s eye perspective an action density is permanently
>>>>     painted on the clock dial and thereby describes an total event.
>>>>     The last degree of freedom events are rather trivial
>>>>
>>>>                 We need a geometry in which both space and time are
>>>>     curved back on themselves to provide a donut in which the
>>>>     forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are self contained eigen states at
>>>>     each action quanta.
>>>>
>>>>     Does any of this suggest a tension field you might be thinking
>>>>     about??
>>>>
>>>>     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 1/24/2018 7:20 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         1. Yes, I have submitted an essay. FQXi has not sent the
>>>>         approval link yet.
>>>>
>>>>         2. Replacement of our SPIE conf. Without a supporting
>>>>         infrastructure to replace SPIE-like support, it is very
>>>>         difficult to manage. I will try NSF during the last week of
>>>>         May. Do you want to start negotiating with some out-of-box
>>>>         European groups?
>>>>
>>>>         3. Re-starting afresh from the bottom up is the only way to
>>>>         start re-building a unified field theory. It is futile to
>>>>         force-fit whole bunch of different theories that were
>>>>         structured differently at different states of human
>>>>         cultural epoch.
>>>>
>>>>         Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Wolfgang Baer
>>>>         <wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Chandra:
>>>>
>>>>             Just rereading your 2015 paper "Urgency of evolution..."
>>>>
>>>>             I love the sentiment " This is a good time to start
>>>>             iteratively re-evaluating and restructuring all the
>>>>             foundational postulates behind all the working theories"
>>>>
>>>>             Did you write a paper for FQXi?
>>>>
>>>>             I sent one in https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>>>>
>>>>             Is there any chance to get a replacement for the SPIE
>>>>             conference, one that would expand the questions
>>>>
>>>>             beyond the nature of light?
>>>>
>>>>             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>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>             Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>             at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>>>>             <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>>>             <a
>>>>             href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 <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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>
>>>>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>>>     <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 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>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cmmpoehdbdlkmfdj.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jchaklmahldlaada.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gdfpdmnggfigcpkp.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3622 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180226/a0000508/attachment-0002.gif>


More information about the General mailing list