<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I understand the challenge but and appreciate the warning, <br>
</p>
<p>I am very interested in the reference to the "Apply Newtonian
mechanics to properties of the photon as I outlined a while ago
and you get general relativity"</p>
<p>I found other discrepancies but if there is a redshift
explanations for the orbital p recession it would be very
interesting<br>
</p>
Wolf
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/15/2017 12:49 AM, Viv Robinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:etPan.5969c912.9deb471.4fee@universephysics.com">
<style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Wolf,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Thank you for
your response. In my presentation you will see that I have
acknowledged that events in the micro world are observer
centric. If you believe it can be proven in the macro world as
well you should do as I have suggested. State the science behind
it. Then use mathematics to show that the effect of the science
matches observation. Without that everything is mere conjecture,
discussion about which can, and do, go on endlessly. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Reality is a
universe in which there are three space dimensions and time. It
is populated by empty space with electric permittivity and
magnetic permeability, photons and particles. Experimental
science has observed all those things. Physics is about
exploring how they interact to produce what is observed. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">I do not find
any physical or conjectural difficulties in using those
properties to explain what is observed. I further suggest that
classical physics, i.e. Newton's mechanics and Maxwell’s
electromagnetism, form the basis of the physical world. Apply
Newtonian mechanics to properties of the photon as I outlined a
while ago and you get general relativity. Most people can’t
calculate the precession of Mercury’s orbit around the sun.
However you will find it is directly related to the redshift z
of photons emitted by sun and traveling between Mercury and
Earth orbits. General relativity has a sound physical basis.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">SRT and
quantum effects are due to the toroidal or rotating photon model
of matter. Those calculations are complex. But they have a sound
physical basis, namely classical physics and the photon, and
they do match observation. The first example was Planck’s
derivation of the emission spectra of black body radiation.
Classical electromagnetism led to a runaway cascade at high
temperature. Applying the quantum of energy, the photon, to
Maxwell’s work correctly predicted the observed radiation
spectra. IMHO the same applies for other aspects of physics that
many people find difficult to comprehend.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">If you wish to
convince people that the macro world is observer dependent,
please state the physics behind the interaction between the
observer and the effect it causes. Then use mathematics to show
that the magnitude of the effect matches observation. Without
those you will find it difficult to convince others, myself
included, that there is validity to your assumption. Remember
that the observers in special and general relativity situations
will get different answers from observing the same phenomena
from different perspectives. That does not men those observers
affected the outcome.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Having said
the above, you are entitled to continue your study. Until such
time as you can clearly and distinctly state the physical
principle involved and use mathematics to show that the effect
matches observation, do not be offended or surprised if you
continue to receive negative comments about your work. Remember
Einstein is still being criticized for his theories over a
century after he first published, even though his calculations
match observation. That criticism is due to people not
understanding the physics involved. Those like myself who do
understand the physics have no problem with his relativity
theories.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Cheers,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Vivian
Robinson</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color:
rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br>
</div>
<br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 15 July 2017 at 4:26:10 PM, Wolfgang Baer
(<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<p>Viv:</p>
<p>I agree with everything you say and believe a rigorous
scientific mathematical theory can be built on
principles that includes the observer. It s a project
I'm working on.<br>
</p>
<p>However if you insist that "What happens on a macro
scale, happens whether anyone is looking or not." Then
you've made the "naive reality" assumption which is the
basis of classic physics and has been dis-proven on a
microscopic scale by quantum theory and quite easy to
disprove in principle on a macroscopic scale if you
ever attempt to account for the your own 1st person
experience.</p>
<p>I refer to the writings of Henry Stapp and Hugh Everett
<br>
</p>
<p>Everett is known for his many-worlds theory but that
was not his original thesis and that idea was actually
popularized by Dewitt who thought the many-worlds idea
would sell more books. Everett originally based his
theory on the assumption that all systems are observers
<br>
</p>
<p>This is not outrageous but simply means that there is
something that its like to be piece of material. That
assumption and pan-psychism is the only logical
resolution to Chalmers "Hard problem of Consciousness'
and the Explanatory Gap in science. So if you want to
logically include your own experience in a scientific
theory then you will eventually come to the conclusion
that all systems are observers. If you do continue to
define physics as a discipline based on the "naive
reality' assumption then you are welcome to do so, but
then you've made a semantic declaration and physicists
can no longer claim to be exploring the nature of
reality, but rather a very limited subset of phenomena
that happens to conform to a certain set of assumptions.
i.e. physics becomes a religion and everyone is entitled
to their own.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/14/2017 7:04 PM, Viv
Robinson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:etPan.59697849.6d9b25d7.4fee@universephysics.com">
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">Dear All,</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">Regarding the various comments that go back and
forth over this group. There seems to be a huge
reluctance on the part of anyone to take a couple of
simple steps needed for a good theory. When they are
undertaken, it is much easier to get an accurate
viewpoint across. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">The first is to state the science involved. The
second is to use mathematics to determine the
magnitude of that science. If the science and
mathematics combine to match observation, there is a
reasonable chance the observed effect is explicable by
the science forwarded. Those simple steps can place
any discussion on a firm footing. Further proof comes
from predicting an unobserved effect and having a
match. Without them the discussions go back and forth
based upon opinion that is not confirmed by
observation, science and/or mathematics. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">Regarding any observer-centric theory. What
happens on a macro scale, happens whether anyone is
looking or not. The only exception is when a life
form, eg humans, interferes with it and changes that
happening. What is happening in Jupiter’s red spot
happens whether <span style="font-size: 13px;">or not </span><span
style="font-size: 13px;">we exist. Whether or not
the radiations from it is detected by humans makes,
no difference to what happens. It has left and won’t
return. The only difference humans may make is if
they crash a robotic probe into it. It may alter it
a little bit.</span></div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">It was observer-centric ideas that gave rise to
such things as the flat Earth, where people could fall
of the edge of it if they travelled too far.
Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan disproved
those about five hundred years ago. It also
established the Earth-centric model of the universe,
which was disproved some three hundred years ago. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">Anyone wishing to forward a macro
observer-centric theory should forward the science
behind the effect they wish to display. Then carry out
the mathematics to demonstrate the magnitude of the
effect and show how it matches observation. Otherwise
it invites others to think the idea falls into the
failed categories of Flat Earth, Earth centric <span
style="font-size: 13px;"> </span><span
style="font-size: 13px;">and</span><span
style="font-size: 13px;"> similar failed </span><span
style="font-size: 13px;">theories.</span></div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;">The situation changes on the micro to
femto etc scales. We cannot keep probing down with a
smaller and smaller point. Ultimately we get down to
the size of an atom, electron, proton/neutron and
electromagnetic radiation. How these are used does
determine the outcome of the results. The results
obtained using electron microscopes can depend upon
how the operator uses them, including specimen
preparation, accelerating voltage, beam
current/density, detectors used and so forth. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;">The smallest mechanical probes used
are the single atom at the tip of tungsten, platinum
iridium or similar probe with a single crystal
orientation. Different information is obtained
whether the operator is using a tunneling or atomic
force probe. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;">Those observations can also change the
nature of the observed object. Electron beams can
ionize or otherwise contaminate the object. Scanning
probes can move the positions of objects. Photons,
eg, X-rays, can likewise damage and ionize
specimens. </div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;">That is where observations are
observer-centric. Workers in those fields are making
advances to reduce the observer effect. More than
one microscopist has been embarrassed to have it
pointed out to them that an observed effect was an
artifact of their preparation or use of the
instrument.</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-size: 13px;
margin: 0px;">Ultimately that becomes the science
behind Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Some
things simply can’t be measured more accurately than
is possible with the only tools we have available to
us.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont"
style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px;
color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height:
auto;">Regarding the discussions on Einstein’s
relativity theories. Einstein did indeed develop those
from purely mathematical considerations. This is
different from what was proposed above. Without
knowledge of the science involved, many people neither
understand nor believe it. IMHO the toroidal or
rotating photon model for the structure of matter
provides the scientific basis for the special
relativity theory (SRT) corrections. When that is
applied, it covers all observations so far
encountered. In other words it works. </div>
<br>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">It does not need a universal rest
point. Indeed the relativity aspect of the theory
comes about because everything is viewed relative to
the observer. Different observers don’t change what is
happening. They see the same distant event
differently. Although all observers measuring the same
local event (eg, the speed of light), will get the
same result in their local frame.</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><font size="3">There is no twin
paradox. If you </font>consider just one part of the
situation, comparing clocks at different velocity, you
may run into problems if you don’t make the
appropriate allowances for redshift (blue shift) as
well as SRT corrections. Those calculations are not
easy. To some it becomes easier to visualize the
situation when allowance is made for a "fixed point"
in space. As far as the “twins" are concerned, that
"fixed point” can be set at the last time they were
together and had their clock’s synchronized. Their
independent motions will be governed by the SRT
corrections. When they again meet up the differences
between the two clocks will determine who has
travelled fastest. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">Under any other situation you must
take into account other factors. If at rest with each
other some distance apart, there is the time delay
between photon emission and detection that will give
different times. If they are traveling at different
speeds you need add the Doppler corrections to the
distance corrections. They are not necessarily simple
calculations. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">When all of those things are taken
into consideration you will find the calculations show
there is no “twin paradox”. Similarly there is no
“twin paradox” when the two meet again at rest wrt
each other, even if it is not at their starting point
or velocity. The SRT corrections will determine which
of them travelled the furtherest, i.e., went at the
fastest speed. Any point in space and any velocity
(wrt another observer) can be used as that reference
point. There is no absolute reference point or
velocity in free space and none is needed when you
understand SRT.</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">There is no "twin paradox". There
is no need to consider alternatives to Einstein’s SRT.
It matches all observations to which it has been
subjected. Those who wish to determine another
explanation are quite welcome to try. IMHO they should
consider that their inability to understand a topic
does not make that topic wrong. The only thing that
makes it wrong is the lack of agreement with
experiment. The “twin paradox” is not one of those
situations when all factors are considered. </div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">Cheers,</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign"><br>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024"
class="bloop_sign">Vivian Robinson</div>
<br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 15 July 2017 at 7:55:50 AM,
Chip Akins (<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span>
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple"
lang="EN-US">
<div><!--[if !mso]><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not interested in
such an observer-centric theory. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I find it illogical,
given all the different ways we can test
such a theory, and the fact that almost all
of the results of such tests tell us that
this just is not the way the universe is
made.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Frankly I do not want to
waste any more of my time on it. I think you
are grasping at straws with this one. I
think it is only fair that I be honest with
you about this.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This sort of “way out
there” approach has a certain popularity and
appeal with some personality types, and
regrettably many of those “types” wind up in
“science” <b>looking for the bizarre</b>,
instead of looking for the sound, solid,
logical, simple, and explainable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Virtual particles,
simultaneous superposition of states,
wavefuction collapse, and this belief that
the observer plays such an important role,
are in my opinion, fantasies, which will be
laughable, and subjects of derision, once we
come to better understand our universe </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other than this subject,
I have enjoyed our discussions, and find
your contributions valuable and often
insightful. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>Chip</p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 14, 2017
4:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] JW on
STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chip and Graham:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip: First I would like to agree with your
agreement regarding Special relativity: "But
I do agree that Special Relativity, as
written and discussed by Einstein himself,
has a fundamental paradoxical logical
inconsistency, which cannot be explained
away by layers of additional
“interpretation” of his theory." This was my
original intent. First 1) to show that
inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to
show that GRT was one avenue of development
that utilizes gravity and acceleration to
address the problems in SRT and to forward
our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3)
to open the door for new directions. I did
not anticipate getting blind sided by
alternative interpretations that then did
not further the discussion into step two and
three. At least not in a step by step
logical way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chip second: "When several “observers” read
the data then collected and communicate
about that data, it is clear to us that we
have all viewed the same data. It is
therefore quite ridiculous to assume that
we, the “observers”, had a notable effect on
the outcome of the automated experiment
weeks earlier." It is ridiculous only within
the context of an Aristotelian framework of
reality in which one assumes there is a
thing called "the same data". What if Plato,
Kant and to some extent quantum theory is
correct and the data no matter how or when
it is viewed is and always has been in the
eye of the beholder? Then the observer does
influence the outcome of the experiment
because for him the data he sees<b> is
reality</b> and that reality will depend
upon how he sees it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The question I ask myself is can a useful
and quantitative physics be built without
"the same data" assumption. In philosophy
this is called the "naive reality"
assumption and Aristotle's view that we are
looking out through the windows of our
senses at an objective real world has won
the day for 500 years and it seem ridiculous
to challenge all the greats who have come to
this conclusion. But that is what I am
doing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Graham; First If you feel that your
exchange with Albrecht was "<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">as
specifically limited to physical
realities" </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">and
want to stay within the limits of your
definition of physical realities and
exclude how </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">the
nature of perception, and your(my) truism
that perception is a tool of the conscious
mind, </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">effects
and to a large extent determines our
physical theories (which I believe is at
the center of understanding both SRT and
GRT and why they are incompatible with
quantum theory) then I am sorry I
interjected my comments into your
discussion. Please keep taking and I'll
just listen quietly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">However
I find it very important to have a polite
foil to discuss what I believe is the
greatest of the grand challenges
confronting science - i.e. the unification
of subjective and subjective experience
into a new integrated theory not of every
thing, but of every action.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the
typical words "<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">an
observer or measuring device moving with
that object will draw conclusions (by
human inference or solid-state logic) that
the object is at rest (and therefore they
are also) - wholly as a consequence of
their/its own physical makeup being
altered by that state of motion. Likewise
that moving observer/device will assess an
objectively static object (such as an
atom) as being in a state of motion, for
exactly the same reason." </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The
key here is "observer or measuring device
moving with" I am only talking about an
observer. A measuring device only relays
information someone must be at the end of
the chain to realize the information. The
observer is </span><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">in</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> the
measuring device, he cannot get out. He
receives information and translates it
into his mental display. Both the
apparently stationary object "moving with
the observer" and any apparently moving
object in his display will be subject to
the Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these
appearances are always created in the
medium of that observers mind. I believe
it is a grave error to treat the
properties of the mind as an objective
independent reality. But everyone does it
until Now! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Graham3:
I have no disagreement with your
reciprocity argument. I only wanted to
point out that in both the cases the human
observer experiences his motion relative
to the radiation source in his own display
space. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Graham
4: "</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">philosophers
arguing about how many angels can dance on
the point of a needle!" </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">makes
perfect sense to people who believe in
god, heaven, and angels as the stake your
life on it truth. Physicists arguing about
what two measuring objects will conclude
about each other also makes perfect sense
to people who believe observers can ride
along with them and see them as
independent external objects without
recognizing that they (the observers) are
doing the seeing that creates these
objects.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I'll
try to get a copy of the relativity myth ,
sounds like a good starting point for my
3d) effort introduced in paragraph 1
above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best
wishes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Wolf</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/12/2017 6:27 PM,
Chip Akins wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When a measurement is
taken, of any subatomic process, an
interaction is required. Whether that
interaction is caused by a sentient
observer, or an assembly of electronic
instrumentation, the requirement for
interaction is the same. This is an
elementary issue, because if we are made
of atoms and molecules, which are made of
particles, and we want to study particles,
we must somehow interact with that which
we wish to study. And interaction will
cause a change of state of the particle we
study. We simply do not have any tools to
study particles without having a
significant effect on the particles we
study.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To assume that
interactions require observation in order
to occur is logically flawed. And to
assume that the observer plays a larger
role that just that of interaction is also
therefore locically flawed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can build
instrumentation which automatically
records events, and then, weeks later, or
longer, we can first review the data which
was collected. We can do this in a
repeatable fashion, and expect the same or
very similar results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When several
“observers” read the data then collected
and communicate about that data, it is
clear to us that we have all viewed the
same data. It is therefore quite
ridiculous to assume that we, the
“observers”, had a notable effect on the
outcome of the automated experiment weeks
earlier. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The assumption of
uncertainty, and of multiple simultaneous
superposition of states, is simply due to
our lack of full knowledge of the state of
the system studied.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The universe has taught
us that there is a cause for each effect.
The mistaken assumption that the observe
plays a larger role than just causing
interactions upon observation, was
fostered by other, previous, mistaken
assumptions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One thing which seems
to be a common goal of this group is to
try to remove the mistaken assumptions and
see what that says, and where that leads.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read your
comments and discussions regarding an
observer centric universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sorry I cannot agree.
Too many logical problems which that
approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I do agree that
Special Relativity, as written and
discussed by Einstein himself, has a
fundamental paradoxical logical
inconsistency, which cannot be explained
away by layers of additional
“interpretation” of his theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Grahame, and many of
us, have mentioned, there is a form of
relativity which is causal, and without
paradox.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>
<br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe
<br>
</a>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>