<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chip <br>
</p>
<p>Agree with everything until you get to " Interaction does what it
does. The observer’s effect on the overall is miniscule."</p>
<p>No the interaction always requires a kind of cooperation between
two parties and the observer effect is only miniscule when you
look at the interaction from a third party point of view - if you
are one of the interacting parties that you interpret the
interaction in your own coordinate frame <br>
</p>
<p>If the partners are the I and the rest of the universe U then all
I's interactions are explained by I in its model of U - that model
may be quite accurate and may be used to predict the U's response
and future interactions until it no longer works - what happens
then is usually not part of physics - at this point creativity,
growth, trial end error , evolutionary progress takes over - that
is what i would like to integrate into physics <br>
</p>
<p>best 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 6:34 AM, Chip Akins wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:012201d2fe38$499f3540$dcdd9fc0$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
p.airmailon, li.airmailon, div.airmailon
{mso-style-name:airmail_on;
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;}
p.airmailon0, li.airmailon0, div.airmailon0
{mso-style-name:airmailon;
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;}
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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we come to understand the nature of
particles and interactions, then we can predict which
interactions will occur with a specific type of measurement.
When we really get to the cause and effect, and discover more
of the reality, we will know exactly what to expect when we
interact to measure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this case, the observer comes to
understand specifically why and how they cause an interaction.
And they come to understand the nature of what they are
studying.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this sense, the Copenhagen
interpretation of the quantum did a great disservice to
science. By throwing in the towel, and saying that we cannot
know more in some sense, they distracted us from finding ways
to learn more. But we have made some good progress since
then, and found that indeed we can know more.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The exaggerate role of the observer was
simply borne from these early misconceptions. We have the
intelligence and means to keep pushing the boundaries of our
physical knowledge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Once we recognize that mutually exclusive
simultaneous superposition of states is physically impossible,
and that there is cause and effect, state followed by state,
etc., we then lose the need for the concept of such an
important role of the observer. We then see that observation
requires an interaction, and that is all. Countless
interactions occur absent observation, a few interactions
occur due to observation. Interaction does what it does. The
observer’s effect on the overall is miniscule.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is it not quite arrogant to think
otherwise?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But if you are right, please “observe” in a
way so we all can have peace, prosperity, happiness, and long
life.<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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:58 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox and other
matters<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>viv;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>If you can say that "The micro to femto etc realm, like the
macro realm. does what it does, irrespective of an observer.
The act of observation requires an interaction by objects in
that realm. Those interactions can change the result,
generating artifacts.' <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Are those artifacts not exactly the data we use to construct
our reality belief of the femto to macro realm and therefore
our reality belief is observer dependent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What am I missing?<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 6:46 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Hi
Chip,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I agree with you. The micro to femto etc realm, like the
macro realm. does what it does, irrespective of an observer.
The act of observation requires an interaction by objects in
that realm. Those interactions can change the result,
generating artifacts. Observer-centric was a bit overboard
on my part. It was used only in the context that the
observer can affect some results sometimes. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Viv<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="airmailon">On 16 July 2017 at 8:26:20 AM, Chip
Akins (<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>) wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
Viv<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> We
are on a similar track regarding much of the
explainable aspects of physics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">One
thing that seems to have been taken out of
context, I feel, is the “observers” role in the
study of subatomic particles. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Interactions
cause changes, obviously. The only tools we
have to study subatomic particles are
interactions. Therefore, when we measure
something, we change its state, simply because
we must interact with it to measure it. Whether
the measurement is taken as a visual impulse in
the observer’s eye, or by some other
instrumentation, it causes an interaction, and
changes the thing measured.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Interactions
occur continuously in nature, in the absence of
an observer as well. Therefore, while it is
true that making an observation requires
interaction, which changes the state of the
particle we are measuring, that does not mean
that the subatomic universe is
observer-centric. The universe continues to do
what it does whether we observe it or not. When
we observe, or do anything else, we cause
disturbances at the subatomic level, but that
does not mean the universe is created by our
minds or actions. It does mean that we can have
at least a small effect on portions of the
universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">So
my feeling is that the universe would continue
to exist if all physical observers were removed,
and that the interactions we cause by
observation are just and only that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Warmest
Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
General [<a
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>Viv Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:49
AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin
Paradox and other matters</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Wolf,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Vivian
Robinson</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="airmailon0"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Viv:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">I
refer to the writings of Henry Stapp and
Hugh Everett </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Best
wishes,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">On
7/14/2017 7:04 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Dear
All, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 or
not 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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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 and similar failed theories.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="bloop_customfont">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">There is no twin
paradox. If you </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> 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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="bloop_sign_1500077057350625024">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"> Vivian
Robinson </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="airmailon0"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
Wolf <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
am not interested in such an
observer-centric theory. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> Chip<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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<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>
<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>