<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>Thank you for Einsein's Paper especially a german version. As I
said I can no longer remember the exact reference for the formula
and but it was a book edited by Sommerfeld " The principle of
Relativity" in which several of Einsteins papers were translated
into english. I'll try to chase it down.</p>
<p>I'm sorry I do not find your references to synchotron experiments
that prove the speed of light is constant, I do have your thesis
experiment but thought this pertained to the photon question , nor
can I find your equation of the change in c in a gravitational
field.<br>
</p>
<p>But in any case is the formula mc<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1 + 2x/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
= ~ m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + mx - (1/2)v<sup>2</sup>
where "x" the local gravitational potential, not correct for a
single mass particle traveling at velocity v , and is the
approximation not correct for v< c? <br>
</p>
According to Mach's principle mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> =
-mMuG/Ru in other words mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2 </sup>is the gravity
potential in intergalactic space but still inside the mass shell <br>
<br>
So these considerations gives me a very simple classic visualization
of most of the relativistic effects, when v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
terms can be neglected. All I've done is acknowledged that there is
a universe mass shell gravity effect on the speed of light, and if
we accept that then we can retain most of our classic physics. <br>
<br>
What I am looking for is experiments that prove Einstein's general
relativity is correct beyond the v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup>
approximation. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
AS an interesting aside if you accept that all we need to do is
include the Mass shell in the gravity potential then we can rewrite
the energy relation as a momentum relationship <br>
<br>
mc = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub> *(1/(c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + 2x
- v<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub>
*(1/(V-T)<sup>1/2</sup>) = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub> *(1/(L)<sup>1/2</sup>)
<br>
<br>
and multipying by c<sub>0</sub><br>
gives mcc<sub>0</sub> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(L)<sup>1/2</sup>) <br>
which suggests the Relativistic correction simply accounts for the
fact that phase rather than group velocity is used in some
measurements like michelson morely and light bending while group
velocity is used in Shapiro's measurements. I have not pursued this
but always wondered that the wave mechanics has a phase x group
velocity be a constant.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<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 7/31/2017 8:08 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:51b930ad-c644-60a4-8712-e75ecef4c3c2@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>attached I have added here the original paper of Einstein from
1905 as a facsimile (so in German). I cannot find your equation
in his paper.</p>
<p>Regarding the change of c in a gravitational field: I have
given you several times the equation for that. So not a point of
discussion. But you complained in the other mail that you have
asked me half a dozen times for a measurement of the speed of
light, without response as you said. For this I have given you
the reference to my earlier mail where I referred to and
explained the permanent measurement of c in particle
accelerators, particularly in synchrotrons. Also in synchrotrons
it follows from the finiteness of c that the mass <i>m </i>increases
with an increasing energy of the particles. <br>
</p>
<p>Further questions?</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0cb2c6ac-6257-05b8-4922-66c22f2e0af2@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905 Paper , I gave
the book back to the Library and will have to order it again
to verify exactly the context Einstiein used it. It may be I
copied the formula wrong and Einstein actually wrote c = c<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
which the gives c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> +v<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p>In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and
takes the small velocity approximation one gets mc<sup>2</sup>
= mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
=~ mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2 mv<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic
Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2
mv<sup>2 </sup>if mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>= -GmMu/Ru . So
I'm saying if we simply recognize that a mass "m" even
stationary has a gravitational potential inside the mass shell
of the universe then at least to terms v4/c4 a completely
classic model actually gives us all of the experimentally
verified Relativity predictions. <br>
</p>
<p>Furthermore if we write mc<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m<sub>0</sub> or
c<sub>0 </sub>one apples the SRT correction to. You like
applying it to the mass and say that mass increases. I thought
it makes more sense to apply it to the speed of light <br>
</p>
<p>Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins formula or not
the argument I was trying to make is the same. The speed of
light depends upon the gravitational potential in which the
measurement of the speed of light is made, it is not constant</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b029f006-e522-0df0-71f5-f5d2b7dc40d9@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle
accelerator and particularly a synchrotron is a permanent
check for the speed of light, and in particular also a check
of the Lorentz transformation where it describes the
behaviour of an object being accelerated towards c. And that
a behaviour of physics regarding c different from the
Lorentz transformation would require a different design of
particle accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream
regarded the measured value of the speed of light is
permanently confirmed.<br>
</p>
<p>And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following
equation for the speed of light:<br>
c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>).<br>
What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there
exist conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I
have referred. <br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4c4116f9-1264-5123-93c1-d39644cc4036@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Clarification: <br>
</p>
<p> I have submitted equations in which the approximation of
( +2mm<sub>l</sub>G/r -2mc<sup>2</sup>- mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup>
=<sup> </sup>~ <sup> </sup>1/2 mv<sup>2</sup> + mc<sup>2</sup>
-mm<sub>l</sub>G/r</p>
<p>So that simply by recognizing that mc<sup>2 </sup>is
the classic potential energy inside a mass shell -m *Mu*
G/Ru ofthe Universe we get a very simple cosmology that
is completely consistent with all known experiments - the
assumption is simply that the speed of light as a
surrogate for the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena
is dependent upon the gravitational potential which was
shown by Shapiro's experiments. and light bending.and
clock slow downs. I interpret c<sup>2</sup> is the
universe escape velocity. <br>
</p>
<p>This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but
only that if we could get outside the mass shell in flat
space where the gravitational energy of the universe mass
is zero the speed of light is some reference c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
In both case the speed of lighjt and the energy is only
determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is
important is the relative energy or speed of light <br>
</p>
<p>I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent
physicist doing physics. I'm only claiming that the the
first order approximation is all I know that has been
experimentally verified length contraction and close to
speed of light experiments are only verified through
circular reasoning <br>
</p>
<p>I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that
show otherwise a half dozen times but am always ignored <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c5412a70-519c-b7ce-cfea-9c95bc84890b@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Chandra,</p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true
considerations; with most of them I can agree. However
two comments from my view:</p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows
always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result
as a fact in so far that the real speed of light is
constant. However if we follow the Lorentzian
interpretation of relativity then only the <i>measured
</i>c is constant. It looks constant because, if the
measurement equipment is in motion, the instruments
change their indications so that the result shows the
known constant value. - I personally follow the
Lorentzian relativity because in this version the
relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known
physical behaviour. So, it is true physics.<br>
</p>
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks.
He has in the preceding discussion here given an
equation, according to which the speed of light can go
up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict with
any measurement.<br>
</p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails.
And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD
experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons. An
electron of defined energy was converted into a photon.
The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small
angles (so almost no influence) and then re-converted
into an electron-positron pair. This pair was measured
and it reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2
percent) the energy of the originals electron. This was
repeated for electrons of different energies. - I do not
see any explanation for this process without the
assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a
well defined energy, not a light wave. <br>
</p>
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?</p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht</p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB323431CF49B41C7C99221EC393B90@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the
mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination
and the reality is my approach. I think the
constant speed of light assumption is one of the
first pillars that must fall. If there is such a
constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as
the speed of Now…”. <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a
fundamentally flawed postulate by the theoretician
Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”.
Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of
logically self-consistent mathematical theories and
then match them up with “Gedanken” experiments! We
know that in the real world, we know that the
velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and
the velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s
“Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light
wave inspired him to construct SRT and sold all the
mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional.
Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that
the universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, ….
dimensional system where many of the dimensions are
“folded in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a
measurable physical parameter. We can contract or
dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using
proper physical influence, not the running time.
Frequency of oscillators help us measure a period
(or time interval). <span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have
recognized this “Hallucination” problem from ancient
times, which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective
of how five blinds can collaborate to construct a
reasonable model of the Cosmic Elephant and then
keep on iterating the model ad infinitum, or (ii)
Western perspective of “shadows of external objects
projected inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we
become “groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to
survive economically and feel “belonging to the
sociaety”. The result is the current sad state of
moribund physics thinking. Fortunately, many people
have started challenging this moribund status quo
with papers, books, and web forums. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable
renaissance in physics coming within a few decades!
Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible
quanta” of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even
though no optical engineer ever try to propagate an
“indivisible quanta”; they always propagate light
waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature;
nor is a causal signal. [I have been trying to
correct this fundamental confusion through my book,
“Causal Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of
thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in
the Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized
the approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution
to remain anchored with the reality of nature!
“Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”
[see attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately
bring a challenge. If all our interpretations are
cooked up by our neural network for survival; then
who has the authority to define objective reality?
Everybody, but collaboratively, like modeling the
“Cosmic Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the
seeing “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It
is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic
interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed
in quantitatively defining the subtlety of color
variation of any magnificent color painting without
a quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an
objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the
subtle difference, from seeing “color”, to <b><i>quantifying
energy content per frequency interval.</i></b>
This is “objective” science determined by
instruments without a “mind”, which is reproducible
outside of human interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered
this technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists.
It has been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5
billion years without the intervention of humans. We
are a very late product of this evolution. This is
an objective recognition on our part! Our,
successful evolution needed “instantaneous color”
recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in
our earlier stage. We have now overcome our survival
mode as a species. And we now have become a pest in
the biosphere, instead of becoming the caretaker of
it for our own long-term future. <b><i>This is the
sad break in our wisdom.</i></b> This is why I
am promoting the concept, “Urgency of Evolution
Process Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps
generate a common, but perpetually evolving thinking
platform for all thinkers, whether working to
understand Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social
Engineering (Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of
observer, a deeper path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my
machine but the transcript is available and Anl Seth
states what many people studying the human psyche as
well as eastern philosophy have said for centuries ,
Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is
built upon that hallucination, but it works so well,
or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC
Irvine contends <a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen,
a file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on
the disk, but these icons as well as the
"hallucinations" are connected to some reality and
we must take them seriously. Deleting the icon also
deletes the disk which may have disastrous
consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take
Albrechts route and try to understand the universe
and photons first based upon the idea that it is
independently real and then solve the human
consciousness problem or we can take the opposite
approach and rebuild a physics without the
independent physical reality assumption and see if
we cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum
theory. Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of
connection between the Hallucination and the reality
is my approach. I think the constant speed of light
assumption is one of the first pillars that must
fall. If there is such a constant it should in my
opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now , a
property we individually apply to all our
observations. <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 7/23/2017 2:44 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear
colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately
there has been continuing discussion on the role
of observer and the reality. I view that to be
healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We
must guide ourselves to understand and model the
universe without human mind shaping the cosmic
system and its working rules. This suggestion
comes from the fact that our own logic puts the
universe to be at least 13 billion years old,
while we, in the human form, have started
evolving barely 5 million years ago (give or
take). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
we are not smart enough to determine a
well-defined and decisive path, as yet. Our
search must accommodate perpetual iteration of
thinking strategy as we keep on advancing. This
is well justified in the following TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><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" 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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
width="1" height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></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" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<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:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>