Dear Avtar,
Having glanced through your two papers, I appreciate aspects of your analysis…
for example, I too have reasons for rejecting the Big Bang interpretation of
the universe. However, you do accept many of relativity theory’s premises,
which I do not. Relativity theory (SGR – special/general relativity) is a dead
weight, in my opinion, that restrains further development in the sciences. We
need to clarify once and for all, whether there is just cause to continue
including references to SGR in our conversations about consciousness. Here are
my reasons for getting rid of SGR completely (taken from an outline that I
posted in another forum):
THE PROBLEM WITH SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY (SGR)
Most of us, at one time or another, have probably come across some reference to
the inconsistencies between relativity theory (SGR) and quantum mechanics (QM).
The second of SGR's two postulates is that nothing can go faster than the speed
of light (c). But this conflicts with QM, where some manner of information
transfer has been experimentally shown to be, for all practical intents and
purposes, instantaneous (though not in the context of communication – no
communication theorem applies). The time to confront these inconsistencies is
now long overdue. Either QM or SGR or both are wrong. Only one of them, at
most, can be right. I am putting my money on QM, and I do so for the following
reasons:
1) Experimental evidence consistent with QM is compelling and repeatable
(some silly or annoying interpretations of said results notwithstanding).
Bell's inequality and entanglement have been proven experimentally time and
time again, with good, smoking-gun evidence that is difficult to refute;
2) SGR has no smoking-gun evidence... the evidence that they produce is
open to concerns about confirmation bias, and brings us back to Binswanger
(2013) and Horton (2015), and the question of peer-review favoritism, and
interpretations by "experts" with an agenda. Most importantly, there is no GPS
smoking-gun evidence, GPS technology does NOT factor in relativity corrections,
but relies on basic feedback control algorithms and Laplace transforms - Barry
Springer (2013). This GPS urban legend is trotted out at every opportunity like
a prize bull at the Spring Fair, but it is complete nonsense, debunked as
comprehensively as the wage-gap myth has been. But it's the only "smoking gun"
evidence that they ever had... and it had me until I started digging around;
3) So we've dispensed with the GPS smoking gun. What other evidence do they
cite? Galactic red-shift as evidence for the Big Bang? The tired-light
hypothesis provides an alternative explanation. And the more they say things,
like, "but every scientist knows that tired light is nonsense and not taken
seriously any more", the more I am reminded of Fake News Media and CNN. Nope,
the tired light hypothesis is as real as red sunsets (photons losing energy
tend to the red, in accordance with E=hf. And light scattering by the particles
or molecules of interstellar space can also contribute to redshift, as what
happens at sunset, when photons have more atmosphere to transit). And no, the
Tolman brightness test and other tests are not inconsistent with tired light.
We need to ask what part a broken science might be playing in confabulating a
miasma of Big Bang Baloney;
4) Mercury's perihelion shift. Again, no smoking-gun evidence here.
Experimental evidence is not conclusive, because said relativity correction
contributes of the order, only, of about 7.5% of the total. Given our concerns
about Fake News Culture and the peer-review process (Binswanger 2013 and Horton
2015), we need to be concerned whether this small fraction was arrived at
impartially, or in the spirit of confirmation bias. Did they factor everything
else in? What about the asteroid belt? Or Dark Matter for that matter?
5) SGR is based on an assumption about the speed of light, and that's all
it is... an assumption. They've constructed self-consistent mathematical proofs
around that assumption in order to arrive at what I personally conclude is a
major category error... the conflation of time as a dimension of space-time;
6) Several sources are available online that debunk relativity theory. It
is pointless enumerating them here, as the arguments are detailed and complex,
and takes us beyond topic. But for those who are interested, googling
[relativity theory debunked] provides a good starting point. Here is one
compelling refutation of SGR found through just such a search:
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp ;
7) And finally, an important question that does not seem to entered into
mainstream physics discourse. Is it possible that SGR's second postulate, the
constancy of c, actually relates to a quantum-mechanical phenomenon rather than
a relativistic one? If so, then the central axiom of special relativity, with
its relevance to general relativity, no longer holds. This is a question that I
am researching at the moment, and it relates to Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle and the notion of "quantum tunneling"... that a particle's motion
through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in
Newtonian physics.
SGR's inconsistencies with QM are non-trivial. That nonlocal effects are
instantaneous regardless of distance is a huge problem for SGR. That in itself
might be enough to kill this SGR monstrosity once and for all, yet the SGR
dogma continues to thrive. Like whack-a-mole, it repeatedly keeps wedging its
weakly supported assertions into physics discourse, as if "nothing, not even
information, can go faster than light" were an established axiom. No sooner do
quantum physicists come up with an intriguing conjecture that deserves to be
explored, than up it pops again... the constancy of c postulate, as if SGR were
an established scientific fact. This weakly supported conjecture is a
ball-and-chain that needs to be settled once and for all. This will free up
discourse in QM to explore further developments without being hampered by
weakly supported objections.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Binswanger, M. (2013, December 17). Excellence by nonsense: The competition for
publications in modern science. Springer Link:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_3/fulltext.html
Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? The Lancet,
385 (9976), 1380:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
Springer, Barry (2013). Does GPS Navitation Rely Upon Einstein's Relativity?
Proceedings of the NPA:
http://worldnpa.org/does-the-gps-system-rely-upon-einsteins-relativity/
Xinhang Shen (2016). Challenge to the special theory of relativity. Physics
Essays 29, 1 (2016):
http://www.nacgeo.com/nacsite/press/1march2016.asp
Regards,
sj
From: 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri
Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:53 AM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?
Dear Kashyap and All:
My Universal Relativity model (URM) is all inclusive – bottom up and top down.
From bottom up it provides field equations for spontaneous mass-energy
conversion among particles/classical masses and from top/down it conserves the
total mass-energy of the universe. The solution describes universe as a
continuum of mass-energy states from V=0 (R=0) to V=C (R up to infinity). These
states are independent of time in an eternal universe (no big bang).
The model successfully predicts the observed empirical universe without the
inconsistencies and paradoxes of the standard big bang model. It also
eliminates singularities of General Relativity and explains inner workings of
QM in relativistic terms including collapse of the wave function, non-locality,
quantum gravity, anti-gravity (expansion), dark-energy (Vacuum), and dark
matter without the need for ridiculous parallel multi-verses or super-luminous
inflation.
At smaller V, matter and gravity dominate. As V increases to the order of C,
matter converts to kinetic energy. At V=C, matter/distance/time fully dilate to
zero leading to the purely dynamic Zero-point state wherein physicality ends
into an absolute un-manifested state of pure kinetic consciousness
representing the implicate order of the cosmic law (the law of conservation of
existence).
I am enclosing two papers –
1. Summary of the URM
2. Full paper describing the model and validations against empirical data.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science,
Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
-----Original Message-----
From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasav...@iupui.edu>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 1:55 pm
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?
Dear Avtar,
Do you have a top-down mathematical model in which quantum fields and particles
come out from consciousness?
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri
Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
<mailto:Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com?> ]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?
Matter, mind, and consciousness represent a continuum in a living universe.
Please refer to the following links:
The Unlikely F
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-unlikely-fate-of-two-universes_us_5947dcdee4b024b7e0df4de0>
ate of Two Universes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-unlikely-fate-of-two-universes_us_5947dcdee4b024b7e0df4de0
The Last Paradox: Does the Universe Have A Mind?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59511dbee4b0f078efd98365
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science,
Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 2:36 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: what do you believe consciousness is or does?
On 06 Jul 2017, at 22:18, Joseph McCard wrote:
Is matter independent of consciousness.
I think that in the Vedanta of Sankara, like in the theology of numbers, or
like in the work of Plotinus, matter is a creation of the soul (Atman). The
body is a biological or arithmetical illusion. In the theology of Numbers, the
physical laws should be derived from the logic of machine or number
(self)-observability. So in such theories, matter depends on consciousness. The
propositional logic of the observable have been partially derived, and up to
now fits well with the facts and with the reports of 1p experience (local
particular consciousness). I can explain more, but at some point, this
explanation relies on results in mathematical logic which are not well known by
non-logicians.
This explanation here is coherent with the non-collapse interpretation of
quantum mechanics. It generalize Drawin, somehow, as the laws of physics evolve
in some logical space, but its interest relies mainly in the fact that it does
not eliminate the first person view, nor the quale et consciousness, unlike
some purely materialist approach (Churchland, Dennett, etc.).
Bruno Marchal
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions
under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D."
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37a32938-86bc-4946-a525-b898b2f5a915%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/37a32938-86bc-4946-a525-b898b2f5a915%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions
under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D."
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to online_sadhu_sanga+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/000001d2fa47%24a920d950%24fb628bf0%24%40net.au.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirc...@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
