[General] You Eq.2 in your paper

[Wolfgang Baer]

john:


F_g = -φ – (1/c)∂A_g /∂t= -φ – (φ/c^2 )∂v/∂t(2)

Where : φ = the gravitational And A_g = (1/c) ∫(ρ∙*v*/r) dV

c = the speed of light const.Where: V = volume of the Universe

v = the velocity of a test massρ=the Universe mass density

A_g =the sum over all mass currentsv= the velocity vector of the density

r= the distance to the test mass





Eq. 2 come from Sciama's work based upon Lorenz Relativity in which a 
gravitational vector potential Ag is added to the gradient.
Sciama assumed the time derivative sum could be solved by assuming all 
masses in the universe flow in the opposite direction as the particle of 
interest with velocity "v", this allows the required summation to be 
carried out and reduced to the single time derivative  which is then the 
acceleration ascribed to inertia. What this shows it that inertia is a 
gravitational interaction which is also suggested by the Lense-Thirring 
Effect. When Einstein heard about this he coined the phrase "Mach's 
principle" , but later  Mach criticized General Relativity and Einstein 
dropped the association.

Since the second term drops off as 1/r  it is of much longer range that 
the gravitational force which drops off as 1/r^2
Thus when gravity imposes limits as to what we can see , the possibility 
exists that multi-verse interaction from mass influences local 
phenomena. Remember gravity is weak, but inertia is what balances the 
electric force in Bohr's atomic model. So if we recognize inertia as a 
force not an intrinsic static property of particles, then random 
fluctuations due to quasi random motions of universe masses could 
introduce random perturbations in orbits - and the statistical nature f 
Quantum Mechancs would have an ontological explanation.
ERic Reiter (see paper from conference) suggests Sommerfelds Loading 
Theory rather than photon in the EM field projection can be demonstrated 
with his experiment. Loading theory says energy build up in detectors 
randomly and EM waves push some detectors over the top to fire 
randomly.  Sommerfeld introduced the fine structure constant relating 
electric and gravity, so random long range inertial influences on top of 
loading theory would explain QM statistics.

I found Sciama's paper at

[23] Sciama D. W., “On the Origin of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S., Vol.113, 
p.34, (1953)

URL: 
http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf


I think I have a copy somewhere I can send you.

Best
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 5/4/2016 9:35 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf
> Thanks for your paper.
> Your Eq.2 appears as a fluid flow. Please expand on your treatment of 
> the time derivative term. What effect would differentiate your model 
> with other models? How could the time derivative be effective in an 
> experiment? How would this term be different from merely proportional 
> to the gradient term? Is the time derivative term like an acceleration 
> or velocity?
> You suggest it would be effective at larger distances.
> I ask because the existence of the time derivative term is the most 
> problematical part of my STOE. I consider the “space” (plenum) has a 
> substantive existence rather than being merely a backdrop for matter 
> to play its role. Therefore, it should have some fluid flow 
> characteristics. However, gravity potential seems to be only 1/r. In 
> the analysis of galaxy rotation curves, I used the gradient without 
> the time derivative term despite the outflow of matter (hydrogen and 
> other stuff) on the rational that the time derivative term was 
> proportional to the gradient (not an acceleration). The derivation of 
> the photon trajectory in Young’s Experiment simulation included a 
> similar assumption where the term was a velocity (not velocity squared 
> which would render a turbulence in the flow) that rendered a 
> description of inertia of space (plenum).
> Hodge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160505/f7476a8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160505/f7476a8c/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160505/f7476a8c/attachment-0001.gif>