[General] Sciama's inertia

[Wolfgang Baer]

Hodge:

Saciamauses Lorenz’s idea of gravity which I have read is an 
approximation to Einsteins Equations. The introduction of a vector 
potential into the gravitational force is a guess based on an analogy 
and been verified with Lens Turing effect that matter responds to the 
velocity of master s well as the direct attractive force.

The instantaneous comes from the local field

The reaction force is also local , no need to have infinite propogation.

The mass density does not increase as r^2 , the gravity force decreases 
as 1/r^2 and the force due to the vector potential decreases as 1/r , I 
do not think he makes an assumption regarding the mass densities.

All he sais is that in the rest frame of a particle the mass of the 
universe , presumably locally represented by scalar and vector fields 
look lke they are moving asll together in the opposite direction this 
gives the Vector gravitational potential a non zero value which we have 
interpreted as an intrinsic property since the time of Newton. Well its 
not an intrinsic property if Sciama’s conjecture is correct.


Frankly I feel the classic metaphysical assumptions that mass,charge, 
space, time are fundamental leads to explanations of nearly everything 
including the strange effects introduced by QM - it is not efficient to 
for me to find explanations for these basic quantities which invariable 
lead to much more elaborate and mysterious assumptions. Why should I 
believe in the Higgs particle to explain gravity when then instead of 
assuming mass and gravity I have to assume Higgs particles and 
mechanisms. One I can see and feel and relate to as a being. The other 
requires an elaborate Machine and interpretations and statistics 
espoused by researchers who certainly have their own agendas.

Why complicate the situation? I think that is why some of us is aslking 
for an assumption list. The same goes for Albrecht's and some other 
ideas brought forward.

Best, wolf

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

On 5/7/2016 10:25 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf
> Thanks for your reply.
> You had requested a list of assumption I used in developing the 
> Young’s Experiment simulation. 2 others did too. So I’ve put together 
> a paper (yet to be published) listing them. 2 assumption are 
> particularly troubling to me:
> (4) The hods cause gravity in the plenum. The plenum (``space'') has 
> inertia. The hods capture an amount of plenum to form matter (mass). 
> Therefore, there is a proportionality between gravitational mass and 
> inertial mass if each hod holds the same amount of plenum captive in 
> matter \citep{hodg16}. The amount of plenum captured depends on the 
> $\rho$ of the photon environment. This derives the Equivalence Principle.
> (11) The most problematic assumption is the equation governing the 
> flow of the plenum. If the plenum has inertia, there is a possibility 
> to treat the force exerted by the plenum as a fluid flow with a 
> gradient term plus a time derivative term. The analysis of rotation 
> curves suggested that the time derivative is either zero or is 
> proportional to the gradient. Therefore, gravity potential is only 
> $1/r$ dependent. The STOE separated the inertia into two parts. One 
> part was the plenum captured by the hods. This inertia moved with the 
> hod because the force holding the plenum is greater than the gradient 
> force. This part of inertia then resists motion as does the hod. The 
> second part of inertia in resisting hod motion was assumed to be the 
> substantive plenum moving around the photon and is proportional to the 
> velocity rather than velocity squared which would imply turbulence.
> Sciama’s paper and your thought seems one of the better views of 
> inertia. Sciama’s paper derives his thought on the idea that gravity 
> could account for inertia assuming the reaction was like electric 
> charges. Early in his paper he points out that later in the paper that 
> vector potentials may be used. Then he uses them. This seems like 
> circular reasoning. The analogy with electric force makes this an easy 
> thing to accept. I had thought of using electric forces for inertia 
> but got hung on the vector gauge part (specifically the curl of the 
> magnetic). So I stuck with scalar. In Sciama, the idea a gauge (why 
> not a high order tensor?) can be the core of inertia is a bit 
> repulsive to me. I really dislike gauge introductions into physical 
> models.
> It seems to me Sciama didn’t address how distant mass could affect 
> inertia instantaneously. That is, a violation of Relativity is 
> required but this model of inertia seems accepted (very odd to me). 
> The speed of gravity is a part of my assumption also. However, gravity 
> has a finite speed. Therefore, using Mach’s idea is problematical 
> (instantaneous is still required by Sciama.) All matter, Sources, 
> Sinks in the universe determines the $\rho$ at a point and it can change.
> Suppose we take the $\rho$ (electric potential) of Sciama to be the 
> $\rho$ of the STOE (not a big leap because this is how it was done) 
> and the plenum to be substantive. Then we have a very similar 
> development without the gauge vector part. So the $\rho$ varies 
> locally. The problem of flow still occurs. But the #4 and #11 
> overcomes the issue but it implies the inertial mass changes with the 
> gravitational mass and the $G$ varies with large changes in $\rho$ 
> which is why I mentioned the rotation curves. The MOND model suggests 
> $G$ does change. Experimentally proving it could be difficult because 
> it changes only slowly.
> I’m also unsure of the assumption that the charge (mass) density 
> increase with r^2 given the disk nature of the Milky Way and the 
> distance between galaxies. He also uses the overall charge density is 
> zero but this is not true for mass.
> The simulation and the Hodge Experiment works. But inertia still 
> troubles. I wonder if there is an experiment for Sciama’s view that 
> other models (STOE) would fail.
> 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/20160507/d6871f1f/attachment.htm>