The Objective Observer


Physics is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.

I don’t like to see the basic fundamentals of this universe defined as numbers, and no correspondence given with reality. It seems that science is looking at reality through the “filter” of mathematics, and all that it sees is certain relationships among numbers.

I find Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to be looking at space and time through the filter of matter. It is using coordinates designed to show the position and movement of matter particles, to somehow show motion of a disturbance in a field. Electromagnetic field is a more basic substance than matter with extra dimensions.

I find Quantum Mechanics confusing photon as a particle in space because it is looking at it through the “filter” of energy. Of course, photon is detected through energy interactions. At best it may be looked upon as lump of energy because it interacts that way. But to call it a particle in space is a misrepresentation in my view.

Instead of looking at space and time through the “filters” of energy, matter and mathematics, we should be using mathematics to look at space and time objectively and define energy and matter accordingly.

Here we can make good use of Bohr’s principle of correspondence: “The behavior of systems described by quantum theory reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers.” In other words, energy and matter should be shown as limiting conditions of space.

Newtonian mechanics is limited to matter. Field is a more basic substance than matter (Reference: Relativity and Problem of Space). The mechanics that applies to field is much broader. It is the study of field that now holds clues to the understanding of the real nature of space and time.

Einstein’s relativity and Quantum mechanics are attempting to describe space and time from different viewpoints that fall short of having a universal context.

The scientific viewpoint is the logical viewpoint that uses the universe as its context. It is not limited by the “speed of light”. It can see light moving through the universe.

The objective observer is this scientific viewpoint that uses the universe as its context.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 6:56 AM


    “Math associated with Frames of Reference in Lorentz Transformations and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is actually the math of viewpoint.

    That is why Einstein has been so appealing. We are looking at the subjective-objective interface. We are looking at the mathematics of self.”


    A physical frame of reference simply provides a narrow viewpoint. When we are looking from a moving car, it is just a part of the picture. It may provide a more intimate experience.

    But what ties up all experience together is the logical universal viewpoint.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:07 AM

    Near the link above there is a very interesting discussion with Elizabeth Hamre on “physical reality” versus “imaginative creation”.

    “Dear Vinaire… not interested… I love the magical reality: the universe of Fairies, Gnomes, Little People and Giants… dew drops an end of the grass, flowers …. nature… as you wont be looking into where the Fairies or the Giants originated from since not likely you have interest on those subjects you can understand than that subject of physics don’t belong into my universe, even knowing that the Magical Universe too is energy and nothing more but illusions but still I have love for illusions like that. But thank you anyway.”

    “… and fairies are not there? millions of articles are written about that subject and interestingly they are painted , drawn by many artists. And most interesting that a person who never seen on artist’s painting of a fairy or a gnome will paint or draw a very similar or replica of those images even the coloring would be the same or very similar. Children believe in these transparent bodied beings and children can see them too!”

    “… every idea any scientist ever had was at first a thought, and from there that scientist went on to make that ”thought” happen in solid form… they do everything in order to prove that thought is real.. it exist… hehehe… very interesting. what are thoughts? where they originated from? and who is to say that one thought is more real, than other thoughts are? just because that child or me, or millions of others who believe in existence of Fairies our believes are same as any scientist the difference is that we believe totally and nothing can shake our belief but a scientist only believe in something when sees it in ”solid”shape” . now that do say something. you see simply knowing or one must prove that exist before one believes in,there is a big difference in the two.”

    This is also the discussion about physics versus metaphysics.

    This needs to be fully sorted out in a scientific way. There seems to be a science of viewpoint.



    • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM

      Why has to be a “science of viewpoint?” If you sort out your own viewpoints, lets say you have six of them on the same matter, than the outcome still will be yours..
      No one can duplicate other person reality, what they say, and what they write… when we hear or read some stuff we interpret that through what we know. We have a bite from the same apple but we dont know how the same apple tasted for the other person.


      • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 1:50 PM

        Well, a viewpoint depends on the context within which it is viewing. The broader is the context, the broader is the viewpoint. The narrower is the context, the narrower is the viewpoint.

        A self-centric viewpoint is narrower than a human-centric viewpoint.

        A human-centric viewpoint is narrower than the universal viewpoint.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 2:19 PM

          Oh… got your reality.. thanks.
          But in my reality one viewpoint is the same as any other but it is our viewpoint that ours is better, more important, or scientific, or in these case ” Broader’ now dear Vianire, that I too is on personal consideration and nothing more!
          I am looking -viewing things from my personal experiences and by now I know that ” importance” that concept and what that represent to us is truly a personal=accordance to our knowledge-reality.
          Example: that little naked human in South Americas jungle, to him to be one with the terrain is important: that way he ”sees” senses every movement -vibrations around him.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM

          So, what you are saying is that viewpoint can only be self-centric.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:09 AM

    A new subject is coming into view for me. It is a “SCIENCE OF VIEWPOINT”.

    There is a big difference between a viewpoint that is broadening; and another viewpoint that is simply looking for agreement.

    A viewpoint looking for agreement is not broadening. It is staying the way it is and just becoming more rigid. That is the case with most religions.

    A viewpoint when looking at a situation that has been hanging around for a long time and not resolving, then decides to look at it in a larger context. Such a viewpoint is willing to be broadened. Here lays intuition. Here lays thinking that is “outside the box”.

    Good logical sense depends on the broadening of a single viewpoint than on hundreds and thousands of narrow viewpoints agreeing with each other and using that agreement as “evidence”.


    • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 1:33 PM

      good one! well said!

      “There is a big difference between a viewpoint that is broadening; and another viewpoint that is simply looking for agreement.” yes, there is a huge difference.


      • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 1:37 PM

        V…”Good logical sense depends on the broadening of a single viewpoint than on hundreds and thousands of narrow viewpoints agreeing with each other and using that agreement as “evidence”.”””
        Those collective agreements make that item seem ”solid” permanent and because of that becomes stable datum but that definitely dont make it the ”truth”
        Agreed upon reality is a totally useless form of information.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:11 AM

    An artistic viewpoint is very imaginative and a lot of fun. But it knows that it is imagining and that imagination is different from reality.


    • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:41 AM

      An artistic viewpoint is a subjective viewpoint, but when it is detailed and logical in itself, it is striking and beautiful.


    • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:44 AM

      But this universe is much more than an artistic viewpoint. It is something that allows the artistic viewpoint to come about.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:46 AM

    Scientology goes wrong in trying to elevate subjectivity over objectivity. Subjectivity is a subset of objectivity. It is not the other way around.


    • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM

      I am sure that there is a process by which thought comes about, but that process is yet to be discovered.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 10:09 AM

    From Nehru:

    Your topic of contemplation got me looking, from my viewpoint 🙂

    If I may, I’d like share my point of view of Viewpoints?

    I’ve heard it said that ‘lazy people need a lot of Love’.
    When I feel lazy, I don’t feel like I can, nor do I want to do anything.
    When I feel loved I feel like I can do anything ( so it seems to me ).

    I’ve thought that a point of view depends on the love one’s soul is experiencing…or not experiencing at any given moment, whether from within or from outside

    One’s Tone Level seems to determine one’s Viewpoint.
    And the Tone Scale is mostly determined by one’s feeling of being loved and worthy.

    Very wounded people reject love in present time because that energy keys them in to the pain of not getting real love in the past at critical times when they needed real love and didn’t get it, or to a past time of being betrayed by a loved one.

    The viewpoint formed in the above cases may be “Can’t trust love, cause I’ll get hurt”,,

    The viewpoints that are available when based on feeling loved and trusted in one’ssoul, are totally different from the viewpoints based on not feeling loved, or not trusting being loved when one is loved.

    Is this too simplistic?
    Is “LOVE” ultimately the great determinant ( and only ) of Points of View….Points from which to View?
    Or only “A” determinant?
    Or is it a determinant at all?
    I’ve thought of what causes a person to hold a particular viewpoint.

    Your mention of love reminds me of the influence of an external electric field that helps align molecules in a material by their dipole moments. See

    It seems that an external “field of love” helps align the languishing thoughts of a viewpoint by their “love moments” and thus cause a resurgence in that viewpoint.

    Wounded people have their thoughts very much in a disarray. So, they require a more powerful external “field of love” to bring resurgence. Such resurgence will then help them see the disarray they have been in and how it came about. This will help them absorb that external field of love and make it a part of their viewpoint.

    This would be a win-win outcome.



    • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 1:58 PM

      Love, what is: is an consideration, a killer can and I am positive on this feel total ”love” when doing his butchery, you ”love” exploring the realities of your beliefs and I ”love” doing the same”. Love, what is depends on personal reality of the Universe, come to think of it, we can only have one reality of the Universe since to us no other can exist!


      • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 2:35 PM

        I understand what you are saying. But here the context is “healing a mentally wounded person”. You don’t handle a mentally wonded person by butchering him.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM

          Yes, you can give that person a viewpoint which is by your consideration and by agreed upon reality of other persons, I here emphasise ”agreed upon reality” a different – better viewpoint and that makes that person now fit into the same society. And I know and truly understand that why agreed upon reality is needed: to preserve the same agreed upon reality of greater number the survival of the group as whole.
          But sanity what is, is again on agreed upon reality!


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 4:42 PM

          By having different reality which allows or forces the person behave differently that do not mean he is ill, but means he do not have the same reality as needed to belong into the group. No, in this society they do not handle the so ”called” mentally ill person by butchery but they convert him/her to have same belief as the group has.


      • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 2:44 PM

        The killer’s viewpoint on “love” is self-centric. It is very subjective.

        I am talking about love in an objective sense, which would be the nature of love in a broad universal context.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 2:50 PM

          You mean have greater amount of collected agreement that is good ”love”? just because it is believed by many?


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 3:18 PM

          I don’t think that objectivity depends on agreement. As I said elesewhere,

          Good logical sense depends on the broadening of a single viewpoint than on hundreds and thousands of narrow viewpoints agreeing with each other and using that agreement as “evidence”.



        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 5:18 PM

          broadening a viewpoint simply means gaining a different one from one we had and call this better.
          Broadening a viewpoint Example: apple is sweet, sour, bitter, soft, crunchy, juicy, red, green, pink, smooth skin, skin have bumps, have ridges, etc..etc…there are hundreds of variation to each concept and to unearth them is the broadening the view on the same item.
          I been broadening my views of the universe for 42 years and that is the reason I know that no matter what new concept come up with they are not better or more important than what I had before, they are just different!


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM

          Broadening a viewpoint to me means looking in a wider context. For example, a person looking at a situation in the context of the whole family and not just in the context of personal self. A person who is putting his own interests ahead of his family is being self-centered.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 5:52 PM

          OK… than you are looking for solutions… when one lives in a close knitted circle=family, than there must be a single solution to which all agrees, or voted solution needed. when one lives alone as I do I only need to find my own solution, which cant be called ”self-centered” simply because the solution only apples to self. Again… how we look at this and what is our reality is purely ours.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:08 PM

          No. It simply means the broadness of the context you are using. Are you looking in the Christian context, or Jewish context, or Muslim context, or a larger context that includes all three.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 7:09 PM

          Thank you!


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 6:03 PM

          I am thinking here…. when you are looking for new viewpoint about space-matter etc.. where no family is present than how you broaden that view? has to be ”self” and that would be on self-centered thing to do? I dont think so… Since we can only explore-learn for self. That word ”self-centered” is truly a poor concept because by human reality is a negative term.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:12 PM

          You can look at the universe within the context of matter. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does just that. Or you can look at the universe within the context of energy. Quantum Mechanics does just that. They do not have a proper undedrstanding of the universe because they are looking from narrow viewpoints.

          One has to look at the universe from a universal viewpoint to fully understand it.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM

          to understand the Universe I have used the tech of LRh’s and far as I am concerned those who never have used this technology cant understand what the Entity is capable after leaving ”human realities” behind.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:23 PM

          I think that LRH Tech is limited and we need to look in a context that is broader than LRH Tech.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 7:49 PM

          The technology when used do not give limited anything.. that is a narrow minded reality you have about the tech because you haven’t used it for 42 years as I have therefore you can possibly have reality just how far any one can go.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:59 PM

          Thank you.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 9:28 PM

          PS The view point is only scientific if it is considered scientific .. otherwise they are same as the rest: viewpoints.. Just because you decide what something that something is scientific that it is that for you but that will not be the fact, the truth for others.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 9:32 PM

          Truth depends on objectivity and not on subjectivity. It has nothing to do with any self.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 10:50 PM

          Oh… but who is that =self who decide what is or is not? Nothing to do with self? if ”self” is not the one who decide than who is doing the deciding?
          Group? god? Who hands over the decision to self?


        • vinaire  On January 2, 2016 at 4:44 AM

          The answer lies in understanding how self is created in the first place.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2016 at 12:48 PM

          In my reality SELF was not created since only matter can be shaped and reshaped, the quest – challenge was for me to find out how the SELF has accumulated ”realities” and for what reason. Through the use of Auditing Technology the answer was found.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2016 at 12:30 AM

          PS; truth is personal, what is real to the person that is the truth to that person.
          No one can set a guideline and say these are the facts, the truth if that person haven’t experienced that reality than to that person that fact-truth dont exist.


        • vinaire  On January 2, 2016 at 4:47 AM

          My criterion for truth is as follows.

          Truth, as perceived, is never absolute. Truth is perceived from one logical state to the next logical state in a relative manner only. The smooth transition of truth from one step to the next is the harmony that qualifies the truth.

          The harmony of truth reflects in the consistency of observations from one moment to the next. When the consistency is missing in observation then there is probably some truth hidden somewhere.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2016 at 1:27 PM

          Whatever is the truth for you that is the truth, Your way of thinking, your reality is fine by me but it is not mine. No other person can decide for others what is… oppression is present when ONE person decide what is right or wrong and enforces their reality on others that is also called ”suppression”.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM

          We know each other for 5 1/2 years, and I found it interesting that you still dont acknowledge that the realities others have are right, right for them. You still insist that your way is the only way. From this I conclude that you are one of those persons who would like to rule the world. 🙂 by enforcing your realities on others!


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 8:03 PM

          As you have posted in your blog that what we consider others are point toward self and that is what we are. LRH said the same and I happen to believe in that too. Because that is a true fact, which cant be disputed. Wish you a great year!


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM

          Vinaire, being a human, what that means is nothing more than agreed upon considerations.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 5:02 PM

          A viewpoint does not need to be restricted to human considerations.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM


    “Humans, scientist, most of them don’t believe that we lived before, and they are still at the guessing stage wondering if there are other life forms existing. How these humans would have reality of the universe it self?”

    I think that the idea of “living before” comes from a narrow viewpoint in time. This idea vanishes when one looks at from a universal viewpoint of spacetime. One is then looking at the canvas of all space and all time.


    • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 2:07 PM

      Yes…. those who go by on agreed upon reality they believe that they are solid form and they are no more after the body stops working: hehehe they believe that they are dead!
      but life truly is for those who know from experience that while being locked into the body and that condition is the ”death” it self.. because having connection to the body and the human race gives the illusion of living but not the true existence of the Entity who is infinite.


      • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM

        I am thinking here in terms of a narrow or broad viewpoint. The concept of entity is not really needed. The viewpoint may identify itself with some entity but that will serve only to narrow the viewpoint.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 2:54 PM

          V.. a viewpoint is a viewpoint on experience but the label on it: that it is good or bad, scientific, or unimportant is stickily on added consideration and all considerations stand on agreements.


        • Elizabeth Hamre  On January 1, 2016 at 4:35 PM

          In my term how I use the word Entity is infinite, not a body, because soon as some one declares I am this or that, I am a being, with that considerations they identified with matter: THEY ARE BEING SOMETHING!
          On Entity is intangible-infinite.


        • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 5:00 PM

          For me viewpoint is enough. No entity is necessary.


  • vinaire  On January 1, 2016 at 7:34 PM

    To be totally objective one has to overcome the following limitations that narrow down the viewpoint:






    and others, which make the context lesser than a universal context.



  • vinaire  On January 2, 2016 at 7:12 AM

    Here are some beginning thoughts:

    (1) The study of physics and theory of relativity is bringing a new subject into view. This subject may be referred to as “SCIENCE OF VIEWPOINT”.

    (2) A viewpoint may be based on agreement, such as, “Earth is at the center of the universe.” We may refer to it as “agreement-based viewpoint” or ABV.

    (3) Or, a viewpoint may be based on a context that is guiding one’s view, such as, self-centered (a viewpoint guided by self-interest), or human-centered (a viewpoint guided by human interest). We may refer to it as “context-based viewpoint” or CBV.

    We shall be building up the subject on these thoughts.



%d bloggers like this: