[General] HA: Gravity

Sun Apr 30 18:47:44 PDT 2017

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

On 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> _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.
>
Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were everything is 
already determined and therefore in one state determined by the initial 
conditions, actually any single description in a time instance. Then we 
are talking about events in dynamic states which interact with other 
events also in dynamic states and the interactions change both states.
>
> _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.
>
Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have learned more 
specifically that inertia is not just an intrinsic property a la N's 1st 
Law, but perhaps the result of a vector potential or a side effect of 
other forces like your theory.
>
> 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).
>

I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product force to Newton 
he also adds a gravitational force to the field since it contains energy 
and ends up with 5 forces. However Sciamma's vector potential explaining 
inertia is Jefimenko's main point.
>
> 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.
>
Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and models are 
written drawn or imagined on a background space that is both fixed and 
meaningless as anything but a structural support. I Found it impossible 
to to imagine space time warping so from a heuristic necessity it is 
simply easier to imagine particles and forces between them. However 
there is clearly a tendency in physics to be proud of theories that no 
one understands.
>
> 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?
>
The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is used by 
astronomers and orbital space engineers with great success yet requires 
the speed of light to be infinite or at least several orders of 
magnitude larger than "c" has never to my knowledge been explained. It 
like the twin paradox and the inconsistency of the perihelion of Mercury 
precession is brought up and then ignored and brought up again by the 
next generation and then ignored.
>
> 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!
>
I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's principle 
not answer this question?
>
> 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 atphys 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>
>
>
> <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> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170430/3b74a99c/attachment.htm>