[General] HA: Gravity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat May 6 23:52:38 PDT 2017
Albrecht:
See comments below.
I've also just made progress on a chapter I'm writing for my book
"Cognitive Action Theory" in which I do not assume the charge and mass
of particles are collocated, but instead treat charge and mass as two
different degrees of freedom connected by a force that is not infinite.
I then treat inertia as a field which specifies the expected location of
a particle mass by the rest of the Universe. In other words a particle
moving at velocity v and position x should be expected to be at x+v*dt a
time dt later by the rest of the masses in the Universe. However if an
external force is applied the mass will not be at x+vdt but at x+v*dt +
dx. The deviation from the universe's expected position generates,for
small deviations, an attractive force Fi = -Kc*dx which exactly
balances the applied force. This implements Mach's principle be
replacing Newtons second Law with dAlambert's formula
0= F - m*a and by replacing m*a with Kc*dx
I should have the chapter ready cleaned up enough for comments in a few
weeks and with your permission will send it to you
best
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 5/6/2017 11:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf,
>
> again some comments.
>
>
> Am 05.05.2017 um 05:56 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 5/3/2017 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>> In classic physics the universe is determined from beginning to end
>> given the initial conditions. This determinism includes your brain
>> which determines the decisions of your mind. Quantum mechanics
>> provides a way out by evoking the uncertainty principle which I think
>> is not fundamental.
>> Instead I am building an event oriented physics in which Isolated
>> systems are fully determined until they interact with each other. The
>> interactions change the state from one completely determined clock
>> like system to another. So like atoms these systems stay in a
>> completely determined state and are undetectable until interactions.
>> Since independent systems are not determined by the same universal
>> clock measurements of their state give random results.
> Even without the uncertainty "principle" it would be interesting for
> us to determine the further development of our universe. And that is
> logically open for us except that we are religious and assume that
> some "creator" has decided the final development during creation.
But are we not the creator of our universe. Do we not live in the model
we create?
>
> Regarding the "uncertainty principle" I have a very bad feeling as in
> my understanding this is not a true uncertainty but a limited
> knowledge of the state of particles. Heisenberg clearly has not
> studied high frequency electronics; those engineer know this effect
> from every-day work for the measurement of pulses. Some call it the
> Nyquist effect. It is exactly the same like Heisenberg's but less
> exciting. Did you look at the paper of Chandra which he attached some
> days ago about uncertainty? I did not work through it completely but
> it seems to have some good points.
>
limited knowledge yes I agree, perhaps a limit on the accuracy of our
measurement recording capability, but reality probably has sub quantum
structure
No I just realized the Emails from the group is getting trashed. Will
check out the paper
> Where do you see isolated systems in our world which occasionally
> interact? And why would such interaction counteract determinism? - By
> the way I do not believe that we need QM to believe in a world where
> we can see some freedom of development. As I wrote earlier, QM has not
> helped physics. It has caused a lot of confusion and it has
> discouraged the physicist in their intend to understand our world.
I agree. But do you think there may be a political structure behind its
popularity?
>>
>>>>> _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.
>> Does not Mach's principle suggest inertia is a gravitational effect ?
> Mach's questions which resulted in the so called "Mach's principle"
> were about inertia and rotation. Not about gravity. Now, as he related
> inertia and rotation to the background of fixed stars, one could ask
> the question how a logical connection between this background and our
> close environment could work. And that could make us conclude that
> gravity is involved. This is possible but not for sure and I did not
> find it in any statement of Ernst Mach.
Again the main reason is that mass appear in the equivalence principle
m*a =m*g
There are two main divisions of long range forces forces, those which
have charge as source and those which have mass.
>>>>> 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.
>> I now your theory attempts to explain inertia but does not address
>> gravity and this biases you against acknowledging a connection but
>> there is no such connection is the fact that m*a =m*g , with the same
>> "m" not extremely coincident, beyond belief I would say?
> Main Stream physics say that there is an inertial mass and a
> gravitational mass in the world. The cause of this concept is the fact
> that any object has the same gravitational acceleration independent of
> its mass. But we should be aware that this position is also an
> interpretation. Another interpretation could be that gravity has
> nothing to do with mass. In that view, it may not care about mass.
> Gravity in this view is a refraction process which is quite easily
> visible in the case of deflection of particles at the sun. - But this
> is now my position.
What causes the refraction field?
>
> For Main Stream this "coincidence"as you call it is a complete
> mystery. No one has an idea why this is as it is. Also Mach has to my
> knowledge not given any statements about it.
Sciama's derivation of inertia as the gravitational version of the
magnetic field in EM
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> The shortest distance, the minimum action principle, canonical
>> transformations, and Einsteins formulation are alternative coding
>> schemes for the same phenomena - since I cannot visualize curved 3d
>> space and when I see two dimensional rubber surfaces curved inward to
>> a weight in the middle that causes the rubber sheet to bend and
>> shortest distances to be curved, I and others ask, what causes the
>> central mass to push down? somewhere it is easier to imagine forces
>> in a Cartesian flat space Why? because our minds are built with this
>> capacity.
> There are specific situations where it is possible to describe a
> situation by a curved space or space-time. And in specific situations
> there is a level of presentation which looks simple and elegant. And
> that has surely encouraged Einstein to understand this as a good way
> to do physics. But in the general case it makes things unnecessarily
> complicated. That is particularly true for GRT. I have as a
> demonstration shown (in talks) two ways to deduce the Schwarzschild
> solution. The way of Einstein (which I have copied from textbooks) is
> a sequence of more than 80 equations, very complicated as they need
> Riemannian geometry (i.e. 4-dim curved space geometry); and
> alternatively the concept of gravity as a refraction process. The
> exactly same result using a sequence of ca. 20 equations and Euclidean
> geometry. Can be taught at school. But the leading persons in GRT tell
> me that they find the way of Einstein "more elegant". So, just a
> matter of taste. No idea how to argue in this case.
I agree, you have a short and elegant process. Why is it not main
stream? my only explanation besides politics is that your basic premise
involves two particles, perhaps charges, that rotate at the speed of
light and produce a potential that has a minimum at the orbital radius
and that initial postulate seems complicated and contrived and does not
explain anything beyond what has already been explained. So you are
offering a simpler derivation in exchange for a complicated Ansatz
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> If we calculate the force of gravity on the earth from a retarded
>> potential that emanates at the speed of light a small tangential
>> force would exist that would make the earth slowly spiral outward,
>> this would have been noticed over the several thousand years
>> observations have been made. No Newtons model requires gravity to
>> come from where objects are seen at infinite speed and it seems to work.
> How do you calculate this? Which causes the tangential force? Would it
> be also this way if the binding force would not be gravity but an
> electrostatic field? For the electric field the theory tells us that
> there is no tangential force. Why just for gravity? (Didn't we discuss
> this earlier?)
Yes Newtons action at a distance calculates the observed position of
planets sun moon etc with great accuracy using the assumption that the
gravity force comes from the location of the light not from a retarded
position . Yes we talked about this and the van Flanders paper
calculates the the effect. A small tangential force that would slowly
make the earth and all planets spiral outwards at a rate not actually
observed.
>>>> 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.
>> It is my understanding that both observers conclude the others clocks
>> must slow down. The slow down is due to v squared over c squared in Gamma
> It can be understood in the way that this is a symmetrical situation
> as long as there is only straight motion. But in the moment when one
> twin turns to come back he changes the frame of reference. And in that
> moment symmetry is no longer the case. As I have shown above, the new
> frame of the returning twin has an offset in time with respect to the
> earlier frame. But only this one has the offset, the other one not!
>
> For an easier understanding: If one believes that there is an absolute
> frame at rest, then only the twin not travelling can stay in that
> frame. If the other one would initially be in the frame at rest, he
> leaves it as soon as he turns.
Yres I've seen explanations that include the gravitational acceleration
and deceleration for one of the twins, but one can set up a situation in
which the completely symetric impulses are felt by both observers and
and the coast time is as long as one wants
i do not understand what you mean by an observer leaving his reference
frame.
Each observer measures the world through his reference frame how can he
leave? Unless you are talking about a transcendental god like point of view?
>>>
>>> The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly investigated
>>> with the result that gravity propagates with c.
>> One would think so and I've admired Einstein since I learned about
>> the 4'th dimension in Mr. Andersons Science class in the 9th grade,
>> but now I have had a chance to do more investigation and much of what
>> I was taught is not as sold as it was taught. The argument Jefmenko
>> put forward is quite simple. the 43 deg precession per century was a
>> well known error in the residual calculation of the effects of planet
>> and Sun motion on Mercury
>> using Newtron's instantaneous gravity forces, If it were calculated (
>> but I understand it cannot) using Einsteins equations the answer for
>> the residual would be different, therefore the fact that Einstein
>> explains the 43seconds is an inconsistency. Perhaps it has been
>> thoroughly discussed but this as well as many other contradictions
>> and paradoxes have been thoroughly ignored from what I know.
> I did not follow this calculation for Mercury myself. But as far as I
> know many have done it. And one point has also to be taken into
> account. There are a lot of corrections to be done if the orbit of
> Mercury is calculated. Einstein's correction was only a small
> contribution, but it was the contribution which made the result perfect.
>
No. Einstein calculated the precession of Mercury itself and found it to
be 43sec/cent different from the Newtonian calculation which calculated
a value using the perturbations from the outer planets
but Einstein did not calculate the precession using the perturbation
from the outer planets i fact according to Jefimenko Einsten should have
calculated the precession using his theory to calculate the effect of
the outer planets. If he had done so the error would no longer be 43
seconds. so the fact that Enstein explaind the 43seconds without taking
into account the outer planets is a mistake and his exact 43seconds/
century calculation is proof that his theory was specifically designed
to give the impression of accuracy when it is not.
> In my view it should not be necessary to use curved space-time. But
> there is one influence which was of course not taken into account
> before Einstein. When Mercury is passing the perihelion then it is
> faster than in the other positions. And there it has to be taken into
> account that the mass of Mercury increases. I expect that this could
> be sufficient to have the right correction.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>> Einstein and Mach had a falling out when Mach did not like Einsteins
>> formulation.
>> See
>>
>> 1.Sciama D. W. (1953) “On the Origin of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S.,
>> Vol.113,1953 p.34
>> URL:http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf
>>
>> I think someone showed this derivation was compatible with Einsteins
>> formulation but I have not found the reference yet
>>
> Would be interesting, but I cannot find / open this URL.
See two papers attached
>>
>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170506/026cc190/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: JFWoodwardflux-cap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1843791 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170506/026cc190/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D W Sciama - On the origin of inertia.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 217715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170506/026cc190/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list