<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2599"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2669">Wolf</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2670">Thanks for your reply.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2671"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2672">You had requested a list of assumption I used in developing
the Young’s Experiment simulation. 2 others did too. So I’ve put together a
paper (yet to be published) listing them. 2 assumption are particularly
troubling to me: </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2673"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2674"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2675" style="mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho"">(4) The
hods cause gravity in the plenum. The plenum (``space'') has inertia. The hods
capture an amount of plenum to form matter (mass). Therefore, there is a
proportionality between gravitational mass and inertial mass if each hod holds
the same amount of plenum captive in matter \citep{hodg16}. The amount of
plenum captured depends on the $\rho$ of the photon environment. This derives
the Equivalence Principle.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2676"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2677"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2678" style="mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho"">(11)
The most problematic assumption is the equation governing the flow of the
plenum. If the plenum has inertia, there is a possibility to treat the force
exerted by the plenum as a fluid flow with a gradient term plus a time
derivative term. The analysis of rotation curves suggested that the time
derivative is either zero or is proportional to the gradient. Therefore, gravity
potential is only $1/r$ dependent. The STOE separated the inertia into two
parts. One part was the plenum captured by the hods. This inertia moved with
the hod because the force holding the plenum is greater than the gradient
force. This part of inertia then resists motion as does the hod. The second
part of inertia in resisting hod motion was assumed to be the substantive
plenum moving around the photon and is proportional to the velocity rather than
velocity squared which would imply turbulence. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2679"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2680">Sciama’s paper and your thought seems one of the better
views of inertia. Sciama’s paper derives his thought on the idea that gravity
could account for inertia assuming the reaction was like electric charges.
Early in his paper he points out that later in the paper that vector potentials
may be used. Then he uses them. This seems like circular reasoning. The analogy
with electric force makes this an easy thing to accept. I had thought of using
electric forces for inertia but got hung on the vector gauge part (specifically
the curl of the magnetic). So I stuck with scalar. In Sciama, the idea a gauge
(why not a high order tensor?) can be the core of inertia is a bit repulsive to
me. I really dislike gauge introductions into physical models. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2681">It seems to me Sciama didn’t address how distant mass could
affect inertia instantaneously. That is, a violation of Relativity is required
but this model of inertia seems accepted (very odd to me). The speed of gravity
is a part of my assumption also. However, gravity has a finite speed.
Therefore, using Mach’s idea is problematical (instantaneous is still required
by Sciama.) All matter, Sources, Sinks in the universe determines the $\rho$ at
a point and it can change. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2682"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2683">Suppose we take the $\rho$ (electric potential) of Sciama to
be the $\rho$ of the STOE (not a big leap because this is how it was done) and
the plenum to be substantive. Then we have a very similar development without
the gauge vector part. So the $\rho$ varies locally. The problem of flow still
occurs. But the #4 and #11 overcomes the issue but it implies the inertial mass
changes with the gravitational mass and the $G$ varies with large changes in
$\rho$ which is why I mentioned the rotation curves. The MOND model suggests
$G$ does change. Experimentally proving it could be difficult because it
changes only slowly.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2684"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2685">I’m also unsure of the assumption that the charge (mass)
density increase with r^2 given the disk nature of the Milky Way and the
distance between galaxies. He also uses the overall charge density is zero but
this is not true for mass. </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2686"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2687">The simulation and the Hodge Experiment works. But inertia
still troubles. I wonder if there is an experiment for Sciama’s view that other
models (STOE) would fail.</div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2688"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1462641873861_2689">Hodge</div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></body></html>