<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hodge:<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p class="MsoNormal">Saciama<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>uses
Lorenz’s
idea of gravity which I have read is an approximation to Einsteins
Equations. The
introduction of a vector potential into the gravitational force <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>is a guess based on an analogy
and been
verified with Lens Turing effect that matter responds to the
velocity of master
s well as the direct attractive force.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The instantaneous comes from the local field </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reaction force is also local , no need to
have infinite
propogation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The mass density does not increase as r^2 , the
gravity
force decreases as 1/r^2 and the force due to the vector potential
decreases as
1/r , I do not think he makes an assumption regarding the mass
densities. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All he sais is that in the rest frame of a
particle the mass
of the universe , presumably locally represented by scalar and
vector fields
look lke they are moving asll together in the opposite direction
this gives the
Vector gravitational potential a non zero value which we have
interpreted as an
intrinsic property since the time of Newton. Well its not an
intrinsic property
if Sciama’s conjecture is correct.</p>
<br>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cbaer%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->Frankly I feel the classic metaphysical assumptions that
mass,charge, space, time are fundamental leads to explanations of
nearly everything including the strange effects introduced by QM -
it is not efficient to for me to find explanations for these basic
quantities which invariable lead to much more elaborate and
mysterious assumptions. Why should I believe in the Higgs particle
to explain gravity when then instead of assuming mass and gravity I
have to assume Higgs particles and mechanisms. One I can see and
feel and relate to as a being. The other requires an elaborate
Machine and interpretations and statistics espoused by researchers
who certainly have their own agendas.<br>
<br>
Why complicate the situation? I think that is why some of us is
aslking for an assumption list. The same goes for Albrecht's and
some other ideas brought forward. <br>
<br>
Best, wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/7/2016 10:25 AM, Hodge John wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:451457069.289072.1462641918266.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>