[General] HA: Gravity

Sat Apr 29 12:38:31 PDT 2017

_Grahame,_

you say:  " ... the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the consequences of 
those distributed entities ALREADY being present to some degree at every 
point in the cosmos ...   "

But look at the following cases: 1.) There may be two twin stars which 
orbit each other. Their distance is rapidly changing during an orbit. So 
the gravitational influences to their environment will change. And for 
this change I see the question justified which the propagation speed of 
this influence is. I think that your statement above does not cover this 
case, true?  2.)  An even less regular case: I know a colleague 
(professor) who has built and performs an experiment to determine again 
the gravitational constant. In doing this he has two massive objects 
which he moves towards each other or apart from each other and measures 
the force between them. This process depends on his momentary decisions, 
so it is completely irregular compared to other physical processes. So, 
also in this case, nothing is constant or even predetermined.

_Wolf,_

there was an interesting development in our understanding of the physics 
of gravity. About a hundred years ago it was the general opinion that 
gravity is the simplest and most fundamental force in physics. This may 
also have been the reason that gravity is a fundamental parameter in the 
definition of the Planck units. At present, however, the representatives 
of the German Einstein Institute say that gravity is the least 
understood and perhaps most complicated force.

The idea to connect gravity in some way to the electric force comes up 
again and again. The reason is most probably that both follow the 
dependence of range of 1/r^2 . (But this dependence can be explained 
geometrically if we assume that forces are generally mediated by 
exchange particles.) The idea of Jefimenko that there is a cogravitation 
as a kind of different charge sign to make it compatible with 
electricity is a new and severe assumption. I find it better not to 
permanently introduce new - an unobserved - phenomena than to try to 
live with the existing ones (= Occam's razor).

Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical phenomenon, changing the 
understanding of space and time. On the other hand Theodor Kaluza has 
irritated Einstein with his hint that any force in physics can be 
explained by a specific geometry of space and time. (Einstein has 
accepted that but was not happy with it.) So, why not go back to physics 
and to forces in gravity rather than using space-time.

Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity: To my knowledge this 
was carefully investigated in past decades with the result that also 
gravity is limited to c. I do not go back to the details. Should there 
be new arguments which are not covered by the past discussions then this 
would  be a good reason to investigate this case again. But are there 
new arguments?

If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I expect an answer to 
at least one question: what is the cause of the weak equivalence 
principle, i.e. the fact that all objects are having the same 
gravitational acceleration independent of their inertial mass. Newton's 
theory of gravity does not answer this, Einstein's does not answer it as 
well. Gravity has to answer it!

Albrecht

Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> Wolf et al,
> You will note that my proposal re gravity in my recently-circulated 
> paper, as the 'extended being' of spatially distributed entities that 
> we (with our limited senses) perceive as localised 'particles', 
> implicitly proposes that the 'propagation speed of gravity' is in fact 
> infinite - since there is in actuality NO propagation involved, the 
> 'effects of gravity' are in fact the consequences of those distributed 
> entities ALREADY being present to some degree at every point in the 
> cosmos.  I.e. 'everything is everywhere', to put it in simple terms; 
> as a 'physical massive object' moves (again, a simplistic term), the 
> WHOLE of its extended being moves with it and is immediately in a 
> position to manifest 'gravitational' effects of that object consistent 
> with its changed position, no matter how far spatially removed (more 
> simplistic concepts!) from what we perceive as the 'massive object' 
> itself.
> This points to a far deeper truth - that 'locality' and 'time' are 
> both over-simplifications of deeper concepts, foisted on us by an 
> evolutionary process that's more interested that we (a) breed, (b) 
> find lunch and (c) don't become lunch - than it is in us fathoming the 
> underlying principles of cosmic structure.
> Best,
> Grahame
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>     *To:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> ;
>     phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ;
>     general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 11:11 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170429/3413f8df/attachment.htm>