[General] HA: Gravity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Apr 28 15:11:48 PDT 2017
Al:
I'm too concerned with gravity and charge as the fundamental
characteristics of mater in classic physics to appreciate deeper
explanations until the discrepancies or simpler questions have been
answered.
Is not Einstein's connection between gravity and space time based on the
use of EM wave phase measurements that define space time? In other words
masses interact with charges and EM propagation so that the definition
of a meter and a second with which we measure space and time are the
cause of the warping.
Even more important for me right now is the question of the speed of
gravity. I now had more of a chance to read Jefimenko's Gravitation and
Cogravitation which Al recommended, where he expands on the idea that
the equations correcting Newton's look more like EM with a
gravitational scalar and vector potential and a Lorenz like force
replacing newtons. In his chapter 20 he points out that the 43 seconds
of arc precession of Mercury rather than being a proof of Einstein's
theory is actually a cause for questioning the validity of Einstein's
equations, Because Gerber's formula for the 43secnds was based upon
planetary calculations based upon Newton's Action at a distance i.e.
gravity goes the speed of infinity. Jefimenko points out that if
Newton's theory was wrong and gravity is not instantaneous than if
Einstein's theory explaning somthing wrong (the 43sec precession) is
wrong and Einstein's theory coming up with 43 seconds actually proves
Einstein's theory is wrong. Jefimenko calculates the value of the
precession from his theory is 14 arc sec.
If gravity propagates instantly we are talking about a completely
different beast than Einstein's theory, and trying to explain an error
that is assumed correct just leads to more errors although the errors
may be self consistent.
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 4/21/2017 4:58 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi world!
> Some thoughts: Gravity doesn't exist as a distinct phenomenum.
> Rather, it is a residue of the electric force cused ultimately by the
> dissimulatity of the masses of the main negative and positive charge
> carriers. DeBroglie pilot waves do not exist as distinct entities.
> They are the Fourier components of the totality of signals from all
> the alien charges in the universe. Any given charged particle "sees"
> only those Fourier componts (waves) to which it tunes as a radio
> "sees" only that sender at its internal resonant frequency among the
> cacuphony of all impinging E&M signals.
> For what it's worth, Al
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 22:19 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* "Burinskii A.Ya." <bur at ibrae.ac.ru>, "phys at a-giese.de"
> <phys at a-giese.de>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Wolfgang
> Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
> Dear Alex,
>
> here two comments
>
> 1.) There is a gravitational field, to this I do agree. But what are
> superfields? At least the Higgs field is a severe problem. In so far
> as the astronomy tells us that it does not in fact exist. Any quantum
> field extended through the universe which is compatible with a maximal
> assumed gravitational constant is smaller than the field, necessary
> for the Higgs model, by a factor of at least 56 orders of magnitude.
> (And here I simply state that this field does /not /exist.)
>
> 2.) You are saying that gravity is a theory of space-time. That is
> correct in so far as this was Einstein's position. On the other hand,
> if we use the approach of Hendrik Lorentz to explain relativity,
> gravity is not a phenomenon of space-time but a side effect of the
> other forces.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 18.04.2017 um 15:24 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:
>
> Dear All,
> I would like to probe your response on small reply against modern conception.
> I think that graviton is a fiction related with long failed attempts to quantize gravity. Gravity is a theory of space-time, which has priority for quantum, providing area for quantum theory.
> So, gravity schould not be subordinated to quantum theory -- no graviton, as well as no Higgs particle and no superparticles.
> There are gravitational field, Higgs fields and superdields forming particles as extended nonperturbative solutions.
>
> Yours replies are welcome.
> Alex
>
>
> ________________________________
> От: Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
> Отправлено: 18 апреля 2017 г. 13:03
> Кому: Wolfgang Baer; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> Тема: Re: [General] Gravity
>
>
> Hi Wolf,
>
> some questions and comments to the topic of gravity:
>
> If you follow Einstein's concept that the cause of gravity is a curvature of space then the influence of a gravitational source will be symmetric. Any shielding is (to my knowledge) not in the GRT of Einstein. And - as always with Einstein - the propagation speed is c.
>
> You mention on the other hand gravitons as actors for the gravitational force. In case of no shielding the effect on a sphere or on a ball of mass will be the same as for a point mass. That is true for all forces which have the distance law of 1/r2 . (It should be not too difficult to prove this by integration over the according figure.) Shielding is here an open question but there seems to be no result from observations which gives a hint to a shielding effect.
>
> You write that an instantaneous propagation of gravity would avoid the problems which you suspect. In which way should that work?
>
> What has the stability of a neutron has to do with gravity? The gravitational force is weaker than the nuclear force by more than 40 orders of magnitude. That cannot have a measurable effect.
>
> Or did I misunderstand your question?
>
> I hope that you also did have Happy Easter!
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:49:22 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer<wolf at nascentinc.com><mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>:
>
> sorry I have been absent for a time:
>
> kracklauer expresses a very important distinction between what we actually see or measure and what we infer from those measurements.
>
> I'm developing a physics of the observer and it is extremely important to understand and even have an observational and theoretical language as the Positivists proposed to keep what we see and what we infer straight. Our perceptive system fuses our visual sensation with a theoretical calculation or inference displayed in our perceptive space. However we normally do not notice because it happens too rapidly. So we say I see an apple. No I see a red blob and infer from learned experience that the blob should be collocated with a tangible object. Every predicate refers in our language to a teoretical influence. I do NOT see an apple, I infer an apple exists based upon what I do see. I've even written a paper on the subject specifically in German. so far the DUden people are not impressed, but they will be.
>
> Now back to gravity: I have a few more questions
>
> Calculating the gravity force on a point particle in a symmetric mass shell gives force balance , but any finite size particle will have a net force that pulls a mass apart. because the attractive force on the left side of the extended particle will be greater from a distant mass on the left than a symmetric distant mass on the right. the difference is proportional to the diameter of the particle. It is a small effect if gravity passes through matter unaffected but if the finite particle absorbs gravitational energy it becomes larger. What holds and extended particle of mass like a neutron together?
>
> If there are gravitons to carry gravity should they not get absorbed and emitted by a receiver and sender? If yes then there should be shielding? Does the Sun shield Mercury?
>
> I did the mc^2 = mGM/R calculation when one is in the center of the surrounding mass shell, but we are not at the center of the Universe or are we? If I do the off center calculation in an expanding universe I no longer get symmetrically cancelling force since the retarded potential from an earlier time will no longer be equal to its opposite nearer and newer mass. However if I assume infinite gravity speed things work out. Another argument for action at a distance.
>
> Happy Easter
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 9/13/2016 1:10 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Am 12.09.2016 um 20:34 schriebaf.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. September 2016 um 16:59 Uhr
> Von: "Albrecht Giese"<genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> An:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Betreff: Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi Al:
>
> " "Photons" (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an object of observation. PEROID."
>
> In this case please explain the corresponding process in my experiment, i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where all necessary physical quantities for an individual photon have been conserved. The distance between generation and detection was about 10 m.
>
> AK: You didn't see any photons, rather the pair after the split and infered what happend based on the taget location and the cite of the 'pair production' and their subsequent orbits in a bubble chamber (or equivalent). [If I got the experiment wrong, please describe the target and detection apparatus.] BTW, respecting conservation laws does not require direct observation of a means of interaction between source charges and sink charges, (modulo an uncharged---i.e. unobservable---sink charge).
>
> In the experiment photons have been generated having a certain energy. 10 meters downstream an electron-positron-pair was generated representing the same energy. So, there was some object flying between the generation point and the detection point which transported just that energy. And this object did not have any charge. (Otherwise it would have been deflected away as there was a strong magnetic field.)
>
> If it should not have been a photon as you suspect, should we give this object a different name? Do you propose a name? Then we could have new physics. Existing physics tells us that it was a photon.
>
>
>
>
> And hi Chandra:
>
> Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot wave" in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have e.g. electrons and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar rules like the Maxwell equations?
>
> AK: If the "pilot wve" itself is not of E&M origin, what is it? How does it work? [Granted deBroglie himself did not have specific models for his pilot wave; but others have! For example, see #11 on my web page,www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com<http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com>]
>
> We could also use the understanding of present main stream physics: All particles like photons, electrons, neutrons are a particle and a wave at the same time. If we take the mode as wave in case of the photon we can use Maxwell's equations to describe the situation. - I like the pilot wave of de Broglie better as it is perceptible by human imagination. In the case of the photon the superposition of all pilot waves would in that case fulfil the requirements of Maxwell's equations. Something equivalent should happen to the superposition of the pilot waves of e.g. electrons and neutrons. De Broglie did not specify what the pilot wave is made of. He assumed his "waves of harmony" without further specification. That sounds a bit mysterious. In the case of hadrons those should be waves of the strong force.
>
>
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
> .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170428/9fc2d981/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list