"It is the conceptualizations that are important in science"
The notion of the "exclusively objective nature of reality independent of the identity of the observer" is so deeply ingrained in all of science, since its recognized beginning with Galileo's dropping of the big rock and the small rock from the tower of Pisa, that a more useful conceptualization of a mathematical description of the meaning of the observed constant value of C in E=mC^2 may have been overlooked and its significance buried under cover of "mathematical convention".
If we examine the actual physical observations of this quantity C, it may become clearer why I am maintaining that this quantity is more than the scalar value of the speed of light "pegged" to the notion of an external exclusively "objective reality reference frame" but rather C is more accurately conceptualized as a unique "vector" quantity defining a "relative reality reference frame" that is "pegged" to the central point of this frame which can be seen as the relative identity of the observer.
Following is the logic by which one may understand why I am maintaining that a more correct (functionally useful) conceptualization is one in which C is describable as "the velocity of light oriented relative to the identity of the observer" where the directional orientation may be described relative to the "vector point of awareness" of the observer.
For those educated in science and holding firmly to the idea that C is nothing more than the scalar value of the speed of light, the following paragraphs describing this conceptualization that I am trying to clarify here will be unconvincing and perhaps even, as Dr. Jack Sarfatti has reacted, "not even wrong" (beyond wrong). However, if one keeps in mind the possibility of some value underlying this proposition that C is the only physical measurement parameter that is in fact "pegged to the identity of the observer", and recognizes this as a genuine attempt (supported by other realms of epistemological evidence discussed elsewhere on this website) by someone (this writer) with a mathematical vocabulary limited to studies only through the level of a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry, then it is possible that such a person can grasp the essence of the value of this thesis and perhaps help to refine and expand the vocabulary, precision and accuracy of its verbal description. The underlying idea here is that this conceptualization may be the starting point for a deeper understanding of a mathematically describable relationship of mind ("consciousness factor") between observer and observed. This "starting point" can be identified by recognizing the potential usefulness of conceptualizing a relative reality reference frame centered by the point in time/space of the "point of awareness of the observer".
A simple example to describe the observable nature of C is to consider the following example. In the case of two observers, one standing stationary on the ground (observer G) and one in a jet airplane (observer J) flying on a level path overhead of the observer G at some height, say 1000 feet altitude, and travelling in some direction, say North, if, as the jet passes overhead of G, it fires a bullet forward from a gun mounted on the jet, and the observer J in the jet were to measure the speed of the bullet as it leaves the gunbarrel as say X meters per second (this means a velocity of X meters per second North, velocity being a vector so including both amplitude of speed and direction of movement), the velocity of the bullet relative to the observer G on the ground would be the sum of the muzzle velocity of (X m/s North) + (Y m/s North) where (Y m/s) is the speed of the jet.
Similarly, if the bullet were to be fired backwards (South) from the jet, the observer J in the jet would notice the speed relative to J to be (X m/s) but the velocity would be (X m/s South). The speed of the bullet relative to the observer G on the ground would be the difference between the speed of the bullet leaving the gunbarrel and the speed of the jet [(X-Y) m/s]. The velocity of the bullet relative to G would be [(X-Y) m/s (North if X >Y, or South if Y>X)]. Simply stated the velocities are "additive".
If the bullet were to be fired at some angle between North and South, using simple geometry one could calculate the measurable amplitude and direction of the different bullet velocities relative to J and G but "by convention" the objective reality reference frame direction of the velocity vector for each observer would be the same. So there would be different velocities observed for the bullet for each J and G (because speed amplitude would be different relative to each observer while ojective reality reference frame directions are the same, i.e., velocity is different if either amplitude or direction is different).
The discussion in the above three paragraphs briefly summarizes the ideas of objective vs relative reality reference frames.
This principle of additivity is not applicable in the case of light. If, instead of a bullet, the jet fires a strobe light burst, no matter in which direction, the scalar value of the speed of the strobe light burst travelling in the air would be the same value relative to each observer, this is the principle behind the observed "constant value of the speed of light" which in vacuum is designated as the C in E=mC^2. However, C can thus be seen from the above described example as a very peculiar and unique physical reality measurement parameter and it may be more deeply conceptualized as the "velocity of light irrespective of direction oriented relative to the identity of the observer", or perhaps even better described by another set of words to explain this unique property of it being a "vector" "pegged" to the identity of the observer.
When a velocity vector quantity is squared, multiplied by itself, by "mathematical convention", i.e., "since we can't mentally grasp or understand what it means, we assume for all intents and purposes that", it is taken to mean the same as the square of the scalar value of its speed only. The value of the square of the direction component of the velocity vector is "ignored" by "mathematical convention". This is equivalent to physicists using math that says that because we can't understand the meaning or true mathematical value of the square of a direction, we assume (or accept by "mathematical convention") that it is equal to one. For example, if we square the speed of 10m/s we get 100m^2/s^2. If we square [10m/s North] (a velocity) we get [100m^2/s^2 (North)^2]. By this same "mathematical convention" it is accepted that "because we can't mentally grasp or understand the meaning or value of (North)^2, we assume (accept by "mathematical convention") that for all intents and purposes it is equal to one".
Whoever can appreciate that this idea of "mathematical convention" as applied in the above discussions may really be a compromise about the nature of truth itself and also about the true nature of light, such person may be able to understand the balance of the Tetron thesis, from this starting point, as an attempt to correct and complete the understanding of E=mC^2 as the equivalence equation, or "proportionality equation" by which the value of the energy (E) of any given sytem of reality under observation is proportional to the product of the mass (m) of that system and the quantity (C^2), from which we can define the physical and mathematically describable values of both the relative identity of the observer and the relative identity of the system of reality under observation.
David Crockett Williams 12May99
Continue Tetron thesis discussion at http://global-emergency-alert-response.net/tetron1.html
Addendum of November 5, 2014:
A decade after writing the above latest version of my explanation of what I see as an important overlooked property of the nature of light, the C in E=mC^2, a mathematician convinced me that there are valid and deeper reasons than "mathematical convention" that support the result that the square of the direction component of a vector is equal to one.
Nevertheless this does not negate the reasoning above regarding the observation that C is pegged to the relative identity of the observer and not to the notion of an external reality reference frame.
The question becomes how to quantify and qualify the relative identity of the observer, in order to test for the mind-matter effect.
This I believe has been started by the empirical studies on graphoanalysis of personality traits from variations in handwriting strokes that for example shows certain personality traits in common among those with demonstrated psychic abilities.