<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>so you did not receive my mail as of July 6? I shall resend it to
you, but presently I am not at home and do not have it at hand. I
shall send it middle of next week. But anyway if you look how a
synchrotron works you will easily see that it can only function if
the speed of light is correctly entered into the switching
sequence of the accelerating fields. So, this is a permanent test
for the speed of light c and to the behaviour close to c and as a
consequence it is a test for the increase of the mass of particles
at high speed.</p>
<p>So it is also a proof (i.e. a negative one) regarding the
equations which you repeat again in your mail below.<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:26:11 -0700
schrieb Wolfgang Baer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7102b0ce-5faa-3619-188d-279ae13e116e@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">Albrecht:
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>