[General] HA: Gravity

[Albrecht Giese]

Hi Wolf,

my original mail failed in some way. Now the answer to yours.


Am 07.05.2017 um 08:52 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> 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
>
To your introduction above:

It is surely true that charge and mass are not collocated. But they are 
- also by MainStream understanding - different categories of entities. 
Charge is a static object. It is a permanent property of something. In 
contrast, mass is a dynamical process. This is true for MainStream (i.e. 
the Higgs model) as well as for my model. The force related to a charge 
depends on the amount of the charge and also from the distance between 
the involved charges. The force related to a mass is dependent on the 
mass (of course) and on the acceleration. Where the essential question 
is, to which object or to which motion state the acceleration is 
related. The latter is the question which Mach wanted to discuss, and 
his idea (that it is the motion state of the fixed stars) was called 
Mach's principle (by Einstein). I think, it is a too big word related to 
the object; and I think that this is not only my opinion but it was also 
the opinion of Mach himself.

Question to your considerations above: what do you mean by "Kc" or by 
"K" if c is the speed of light.
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf 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?
Our present understanding of natural science is that there is an 
universe independent of any human individual and of his/her fantasies 
and intentions. Maybe that this understanding is not correct. But any 
alternative assumption about the world would discourage us to 
investigate this world (at least in my opinion). And in the case that 
also our human decisions are predetermined and so are fixed then these 
predetermined decisions are not correlated to the ongoing of the 
universe. Except - as I said - that there is a creator which has 
correlated all this intentionally to cause a specific goal for the 
world. - But that is definitely religion.
>>
>> 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?
There is an interesting book of Paul Forman:
"Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by 
German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment"

In Forman's opinion the political situation in Germany in the 1020s has 
promoted Quantum Mechanics - not by the intention of someone but by the 
spirit of that time: World War I was lost for Germany and most people 
did not understand it. And there was the economical crisis which seemed 
to be out of control. So, a physical theory which says that the 
development of the physical world is generally not predictable did fit 
into the general expectation. Forman says that this was a good condition 
for the acceptance of QM.
Author(
>>>
>>>>>> _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.
Mach has asked the question whether inertia and rotation can be defined 
if there is no kind of an aether. If aether is taken as the existence of 
a fixed reference system as Hendrik Lorentz has assumed it, then one can 
ask the question which physical fact or situation defines the motion 
state of this aether. He thought that it may be defined by the position 
of our fixed star background. There is nothing more contained in the so 
called Mach's principle.

Regarding forces there are four, besides gravity there are the strong, 
the weak, and the electric force. The strong and the weak force are 
understood as short range forces. But in my view they are long range 
forces like the electrical one, but they are realized in the particles 
as multi-pole forces and that explains the short range. And this 
assumption can yield good results in the understanding of particles.

And in my view gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process 
(which means a side effect of other forces). Best visible at the 
deflection of particles at the sun which is best explained as a 
refraction process (this is my personal idea but also assumed and 
calculated by well known cosmologists like Roman Sexl. And in so far 
also presented in text books.)

The weak equivalence is completely non-understood by Main Stream 
physics. The refraction model can explain it as the refraction overrules 
the inertia. This works and it is the only workable explanation these days.
>
>>>>>> 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?
The speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. The degree of 
reduction depends on the distance from the centre of gravity and on the 
size (mass?) of the source. This applied to the internal oscillation of 
c in a particle yields the Newtonian gravity in the non-relativistic 
case and the Einsteinian gravity (i.e. GRT) in the relativistic case.
>>
>> 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
This is not a workable explanation in my view by the following reason. 
The magnetic field is only existing for an observer (or a charge) in 
certain motion states. If there is a magnetic field noticed by an 
observer (or by a charge) then the observer (or charge) can go into a 
motion state in which the magnetic field disappears. In case of inertia 
this is not possible. If there is inertia, an observer may change to any 
motion state and the inertial mass will never disappear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
To understand my model one has to understand (and also visualize) the 
process of inertia. If this is achieved all the rest is very simple. If 
this is not done, all the rest is open and my statements look arbitrary.

Can my model of inertia be understood? I am presenting it since 16 years 
now and my experiences are very different. If I explain it, some of the 
people say that they are unable to understand this mechanism, even 
professors of theoretical physics have said it. Others (physicists and 
engineers) react with total enthusiasm and wonder why no one has found 
this mechanism earlier. It is in fact a funny situation.

There are two typical reactions are in favour of this mechanism. My web 
site about "origin of mass" is since 15 years permanently the no. 1 in 
the search engines (only sometimes it was overtaken by Noble price 
laureate Frank Wilczek). And when I present the model at the conferences 
of the German Physical Society, my auditory is always about 10 times the 
auditory of comparable talks. So, many seem to understand it, and just 
at the last conference some told me explicitly that they are really 
enthusiastic about the model.

I am surprised about the non-understanding because I do not only 
describe the model qualitatively but present a quantitative calculation. 
What else can one do?

But those who do not understand the model or do not take their time to 
follow it, those have arguments that an electron cannot have 
sub-constituents. Because in that case there is a clear conflict with 
the experiments. It is essential for the conflict-free functionality 
that the constituents do not have any mass at all.

If this model is, however, understood and accepted, then the rest is 
very simple and straight ahead. Particularly if it is compared with the 
complicated (and anyway not working) Higgs model. In detail: there must 
be two constituents to fulfil conservation of momentum. There must be 
this motion with c to explain relativistic dilation. There must be a 
circular motion to make a spin and a magnetic moment possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
We have discussed this earlier. One can build a planetary model where 
the attraction is not caused by gravity but by electric charges. And in 
that case one could also argue that there is a tangential force, as the 
potential of the partner is seen as a retarded one. But for this 
electric case I have referred you to calculations in text books showing 
that this does not happen. The field vector of the attracting (or 
repelling) field does not point to the position where the charge was 
when the field was emitted, but it points to the actual position of the 
charge. (Lienard-Wiechert Potential). As gravitational and electric 
fields propagate in the same way there is no reason not to accept the 
same mechanism.

Maybe another argument: If there would be an accelerated or decelerated 
rotation this would violate the conservation of energy. - Perhaps I can 
find an argument which can be easier visualized. I am looking for it.
>>>>> 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 twin paradox is an example of Special Relativity. Special relativity 
is only about non-accelerated motion. The frame of each observer is the 
frame in which he is at rest. For this case we can apply the Lorentz 
transformation. As soon as one observer is accelerated he is no longer 
at rest in the same frame. And then the relativity principle does not 
apply any longer. So, there is no argument that both twins should 
experience the same physics, e.g. the same behaviour of time.

Acceleration is the fact that an observer leaves his frame as described 
above. But the different speed of time for the twins is not caused by 
the acceleration. According to SRT acceleration does not influence time. 
(There are some confusing statements of Einstein saying something 
different).
>>>>
>>>> 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.
Einstein has calculated the additional contribution to the precession 
caused by GRT. So the final result which fits to the measurement is the 
sum of the Newtonian and the Einsteinian consideration. His correction 
is a correction (using GRT) applied to the normal elliptical motion of 
the Mercury. This elliptical motion contains already the classical 
precession according to Newton. The perturbation from the other planets 
is taken as they result from Newton. What do you find missing? Should 
Einstein have corrected the perturbation from the other planets also by 
means of GRT? To my knowledge this was not done and I guess that this 
would cause a negligible correction, much smaller than the GRT 
correction of 43 arc-seconds.
>> 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
Where do I find these two papers? - Well, now I found them.

Best
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
>
>     -
>



---
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/20170511/ccc20706/attachment.htm>