<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><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-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;}
p.airmailon0, li.airmailon0, div.airmailon0
{mso-style-name:airmailon;
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;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Wolf<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I applaud your original thinking. But I am afraid you are just not correct in your premise.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You may view the evidence in the way you have, but I fear it will only keep leading us into a blind alley and diverting us from real discovery. That has been the result which we have had to endure, and attempt to negotiate, from similar approaches for more than a century.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In our arrogance, we have assumed that if we can come up with a radical new way of thinking, rather than just do the work of searching all the clues, we will find a shortcut to “enlightenment”. But there are no shortcuts which actually lead us to our goal. The perceived “shortcuts” are these blind alleys. We simply have to do the work to achieve the goals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In our arrogance, we have assumed that human observation is far more important in the scheme of things than it really is.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And yes, I do believe that the universe consist of a realism far beyond, and more than, our human existence, and that if all humans were not here, the universe would continue. There is no evidence otherwise.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>While many theories are intellectually stimulating, that does not make them right. We are easily enamored by these intellectual “shiny objects”, in the form of “radical new ideas”. That is one of our problems.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Your conjecture goes against everything I have studied and learned the hard way. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry, can’t help, not interested. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is, in my opinion, not science, and will not lead us to better understanding.<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><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 [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 17, 2017 1:46 AM<br><b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<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>Chip <o:p></o:p></p><p>Agree with everything until you get to " Interaction does what it does. The observer’s effect on the overall is miniscule."<o:p></o:p></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 <o:p></o:p></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 <o:p></o:p></p><p>best 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">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 7/16/2017 6:34 AM, 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>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 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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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><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">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,</span><o:p></o:p></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">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">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"><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">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">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">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><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">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">"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><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">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">"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></body></html>