[General] HA: Gravity
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed May 3 13:36:14 PDT 2017
Hi Wolf,
some comments and answers in the text below:
Am 01.05.2017 um 03:47 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf 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.
The original topic here was the question whether gravity propagates at
infinite speed. I have understood Grahame in the way that in his view
everything in the universe is already determined (as you write it). And
as a counter argument I have given examples of gravitational processes
which are not already determined but permanently changing. Particularly
the experiment which I described depends on the ideas and intention of
the experimenter. And his mind is by general understanding not
determined for all times.
>>
>> _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.
But gravity has nothing to do with inertia. Newton may have believed
this but present physics has a different position. And Einstein's
gravity depends on energy, not on inertia.
>>
>> 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.
Again: I do not see any connection of gravity with inertia.
>>
>> 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.
For those who believe that they understand theories like GRT or QM it is
surely essential to feel that they are superior to most of the mankind
regarding understanding. However, I do not believe that this was
Einstein's motivation to develop a space-time related theory. He
believed that it was the true nature. In my view he did not see that his
space-time is nothing than a mathematical trick.
>>
>> 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.
Why this? I do not see the logical necessity for this.
> 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.
The twin paradox is in fact very simple. With respect to SRT it is
nothing else than a change of the reference system. Look at the
time-related Lorentz transformation:
tau = gamma(t-vx/c^2 )
When the travelling twin turns to come back, the sign in front of "v"
changes and so the proper time tau jumps to a new time. - That is not
very physical but it is what the Lorentz formalism tells us.
The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly investigated with
the result that gravity propagates with c.
>>
>> 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?
What has Mach's principle to do with vector potential? For my feeling
Mach's principle is mostly incorrectly interpreted. The name "Mach's
principle" was created by Einstein, but it is not a proper title.
Mach's question and argument was how in the absence of an aether
acceleration can be defined (or equivalently what a straight motion is).
In his view an aether is necessary to define acceleration. And, to give
this aether (which was nothing more then a frame of reference) a spatial
reference or orientation, he referred it to our environment of fixed
stars. That sounds reasonable to me but it does not explain why or how
this reference is realized in the universe.
In my view it would be plausible to refer this frame not to the fixed
stars around but to the origin of the Big Bang. And in some way the
material in our universe still remembers the position of the Big Bang.
To those who refer gravitation to the electric force my question is how
the gravitational constant can be deduced from the electric field;
quantitatively!
>>
>> 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>
>
---
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/20170503/3b1cd871/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list