<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip;</p>
<p>Yes you have stated my approach almost correctly only to state
that it is the power of our own consciousness elevates
consciousness to the level given to it by eastern religions</p>
<p>I would rather say " the universe each of us perceives is the
result (the creation) of our own <strike>consciousness</strike>
activity. As if somehow we actually create our universe by the
power of our own <strike>consciousness</strike> activity. <br>
</p>
<p>We are an activity, a process, an event that contains its own
time ( changes) and interacts with other events on an equal basis</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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/16/2017 6:07 AM, Chip Akins wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:011d01d2fe34$7958c160$6c0a4420$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[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 and Grahame<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If I understand each of you correctly,
there is a specific difference in your approaches.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Grahame, if you are talking about the
universe being the consequence (made up of) a cosmic
consciousness, I think your opinion differs from Wolf’s. I
may be wrong about this, hope I am.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Grahame, your approach, if I understand it,
is also my thought regarding the possible constitution of the
universe itself. And in that case I would agree with you that
it is not necessary to continually refer to that “material”
while discussing the behavior of particles and energy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, if I understand Wolf’s suggestion, the
universe each of us perceives is the result (the creation) of
our own consciousness. As if somehow we actually create our
universe by the power of our own consciousness. This is the
approach that gives me considerable pause.<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>
<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">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017 5:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Consciousness, time etc<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Wolf,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Of
all the various emails flying about, I had to respond
immediately to this one.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">I
really DON'T reject your contention - indeed I agree with
it 100%! Consciousness is the ultimate substrate, IMO -
it's the 'ocean' in which all the 'fish' (physical
phenomena) swim, and indeed all of those 'fish' are
themselves woven by consciousness (mixing my metaphors a
bit here!). More than this, time and space (spatial
dimensions) are themselves constructs of consciousness.
My point is simply: accepting all of that, we don't need
to keep referring to it (any more than we need to keep
referring back to the breed of sheep that our sweater
initially comes from!) in order to discuss and analyse
physical effects. YES, those physical effects ARE created
and sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent and
consistent way, subject to 'physical laws' (defined and
given form by consciousness, sure - but we can take that
as read without constantly referring back to it). So we
can reason in respect of those 'physical realities' in
respect of the 'physical laws' that are built into them.
In the same way, we all agree that a log cabin is made of
wood, which has a cellular structure; but once we have
ascertained the properties of the wood we're using, we can
carve it into different shapes, make roof timbers,
structural supports etc of it without having to constantly
remind ourselves that it originally came from a tree with
these types of leaves and this particular cellular
structure - though the cellular structure is crucial to
the properties of the wood, we can take and use those
properties 'as they turn out', without having to relate
them constantly to that cell structure. So it is, in my
view, with 'space-time' properties of 'physical realities'
(given that they are in fact constructs of constructs of
constructs of ... ultimately, consciousness).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">With
regard to your note in light blue, you may be surprised
also to hear that I have for some long time held the view
that you have expressed (I think), namely that time is the
consequence of the experience of consciousness
sequentially along energy lines [the issue of 'sequential'
as a causation of time rather than a consequence is a
difficult one, but not impossible to conceptualise, as I
do in the following items]. You may be interested in my
article: 'Time, Light and Consciousness', published by the
SMN ten years ago <a
href="http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php</a> (see
my 4th para: "time is the process of consciousness moving
along energy lines") , also my blog post: 'Time doesn't
exist: a step-by-step proof' <a
href="http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425</a> .</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Thanks
for taking such trouble to put your ideas across. I'm
sure we're on the same page - just looking at that page
from a slightly different angle.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">All
the best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] JW on STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p>Grahame;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I agree we need to stop the ping pong. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an
intriguing title and as such could reflect much of my own
thinking.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That you reject my contention that your personal conscious
perception space underlies and always provides the aether in
which all objects you percieve exist including the clock and
the observer riding along with it , and therefore is in my
opinion missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and
precisely relevant to your discussion with Albrecht, is for
me sad but I assume it is because i'm not making myself
clear. I'll try to put a better formulation together and get
back in a few weeks. Can't help making a last comment to
your comment in blue below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<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 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Wolf
(and Chip),</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">First
and most important point: I have no wish or intention
to get drawn into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka
'tit-for-tat') that I've watched going on here over
this issue, so I'll try to address these points simply
with facts as I see them - no blame, no criticism,
just observations.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Second:
the fact that I propose that certain phenomena can be
explained in a wholly mechanistic way, without
reference to consciousness, doesn't mean that I don't
regard consciousness as having a part to play in the
perceptual/cognitive process - far from it. In my
view consciousness is absolutely key to anything we
perceive or analyse; however, in my view also,
consciousness has provided/evolved for itself
perceptual and analytical tools that behave in a
totally consistent way; therefore, for analytical
purposes we can regard measurements and conclusions as
being 'so' (i.e. actuality) at a certain level, we
don't need to agonise over how consciousness has
provided us with them or what underlies them. [Some
may find my talk: 'Layers of Reality' useful to
understand my take on such things: <a
href="http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php</a> , username:
xxxxx , password: xxxxx .] I believe, Wolf, that if
you were aware of my own view on how central
consciousness is to the whole process, it would
surprise even you.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">With
those points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your
comments to me, under those comments, </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon">in
maroon text.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] JW on STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<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;color:maroon">Wolf,
I am by no means dismissing your observations on
consciousness as irrelevant to the issue of perception
- far from it. I'm simply observing that the
phenomena that Albrecht and I have been discussing can
be explained fully satisfactorily in terms of
mechanistic interactions, without resorting to how
consciousness interprets those interactions. In
simple terms, using my idea of 'layers (or levels) of
reality' we are simply discussing 'facts' as presented
to our brains for analysis - trusting that
consciousness uses a consistent, coherent and useful
form in which to convey those 'facts' (i.e.deeper
realities) to our mental processing circuits, given
that consciousness and those processing circuits are
all on the same side! In this respect, introducing
consideration of how consciousness has processed those
deeper realities in order to present those 'facts' to
our brains in a more digestible format is to introduce
an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful level of complexity
to this issue. Certainly there is a time and a place
for discussion of consciousness - but (again IMO) this
is not it.</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><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon">I
agree that that is indeed very important - but it's
not the subject of the conversation that Albrecht and
I were having - that's all I was trying to say.</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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon">A
measuring device provides information in a format
determined by, and so capable of assimilation by, an
observer. In that respect I fully agree that the
observer (or a former observer who constructed the
device) is <strong><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">in</span></strong>
the measuring device, and what the observer takes away
from that device is as much in the perception of that
observer as it is in the device itself. However, I
repeat: the consciousness that constructed the device
is the <strong><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">same</span></strong>
consciousness as that which is making use of the
measurements it provides - and both are working to the
same aim. So, just as one who knitted a sweater and
one who wears the sweater are both well aware of the
intrinsic composition of the sweater (interwoven
strands of wool, taken from a sheep then cleaned and
dyed and spun), but neither need to be troubled by
that detail when selling or wearing the sweater,
neither consciousness nor the brain need to agonise
over <strong><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">how</span></strong>
those data came to be served up in that form, they can
simply be processed as facts - at the level of logical
reasoning (again, see my piece on 'layers of
reality'). The question of 'how those facts came to
be in that form' is of great interest - but it's a
separate question from the one currently at hand.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#3333FF">I
do not understand your logic. When referring to an
observer riding along with the clock one assumes that
observer measures the same reality as the conceiver of the
thought experiment put into the space in which the clock
and the observer is conceived. This equating the ride
along observer's observations with the "reality" built
into the thought experimenter's space is an example of the
"naive reality' assumption. Einstein assumed his
perceptive space was reality and of course the speed of
light in that reality would be what ever it is "c" , and
all observers must get the same result when they measure
any quantity in that reality because that is the reality
and there is only one correct one. There is nothing
inconsistent or illogical about SRT or GRT once one
accepts the assumption that the speed of light is an
independent of the observer objective fact. That is the
assumption I question and it is quite relevant to your
discussion with Albrecht. </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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;color:maroon">Agreed.
That's exactly why it's essential to consider what
effect a state of motion has on that display space, in
purely physical terms. This is what I have done.</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>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon">Wolf,
there is the world of difference between 100%
hypothetical entities such as angels and 100% physical
experiences such as travelling alongside an object and
taking measurements of it. Assuredly the latter is a
level of perception that is unquestionably quite a few
layers above that of ultimate reality (if such
exists), however it is also something that falls
within the remit of physical experience and is
therefore fair game for physical analysis (even if we
accept - as I do - that what we are analysing is an
effect of an effect of an effect ... it is still
self-consistent and so susceptible to analysis -
unlike angels)</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;color:maroon">Wolf,
I'm most flattered that you consider that my
culmination of 20 years' work may be a good starting
point for one of your hypotheses. As long as you give
due attribution for every point of mine that you make
use of, you can be as condescending as you like!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:maroon">G</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> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center"></div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href="<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<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>