<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <p>Thank you all for the responses there is lots to think about.</p>
    <p>I agree Blackwell <font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">a
        proper understanding of gravitation - then our species is at
        very serious risk of imploding and taking much (most?) of life
        on this planet with us. <br>
      </font></p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">The elementary particle explanations of gravity are also interesting but like Albrecht Geise's revolving particles 
I tend to resist trying to extend our knowledge of Elementary particles to explain more and more. It seems to me a simle 
understanding of how the two great forcecategories  we do see Electricity and GravityInertia play with each other is a more fruitful approach.

Burinski's comment that gravty is not so weak and is compensated by spin. I do not understand unless you are talking about 
inertial forces 

I should remind people my SPIE paper suggested long range inertial forces due to relatively random motions of distant masses
 may explain the random single particle phenmena that cause the postulated intrinsic uncertaintu in Quantum Theory. 

Any emperical connection or experiment you know about would be appreciated. 

Wolf

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 8/21/2016 7:54 AM, Roychoudhuri,
      Chandra wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:45qaiu4bd8bt2ib01a8fbll2.1471790749036@email.android.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      <meta content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
      <style>
<!--
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
        {font-family:Consolas}
@font-face
        {font-family:Georgia}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:black}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {color:#954F72;
        text-decoration:underline}
p
        {margin-right:0cm;
        margin-left:0cm;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
        color:black}
pre
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:"Courier New";
        color:black}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
        {font-family:Consolas;
        color:black}
span.EmailStyle20
        {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:#1F497D}
span.comment-copy
        {}
@page WordSection1
        {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt}
div.WordSection1
        {}
-->
</style>
      <div>Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of thinking. I call it
        ergently needed "Evolution Process Congruent Thinking", which I
        sometimes express as, "Reverse System Engineering Thinking".</div>
      <div>My papers can be downloaded from the web: phy.ucon.edu --
        faculty -- research; the link is below my image.</div>
      <div>Keep up the good spirit.</div>
      <div>Chandra. </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div id="composer_signature">
        <div style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent via the Samsung
          Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone</div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <br>
      -------- Original message --------<br>
      From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"><grahame@starweave.com></a> <br>
      Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00) <br>
      To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
      <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>
      <br>
      Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission <br>
      <br>
      <div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Thanks John,</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I'm more than
            ever convinced that unless we can get a better grasp of what
            'space-time' actually IS - which fundamentally means a
            proper understanding of gravitation - then our species is at
            very serious risk of imploding and taking much (most?) of
            life on this planet with us.  For the past century or more
            we've been looking inward rather than outward; humankind is
            essentally an outward-looking race (the very word 'race'
            implies that!), and without somewhere to look outward TO we
            tend to flounder and bicker - just look around the planet
            today!  The world is so vastly overcrowded now, and set to
            be increasingly more so, with numerous environmental issues
            to compound the problem.  We need new horizons, new
            frontiers, more than we ever did in the time of Vasco de
            Gama and Columbus!</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">[As an aside, I
            hope we'd also be rather more considerate of any indigenous
            lifeforms that those who followed Columbus!]</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">That's a major
            reason why I've offered my proposal on gravitation for
            consideration.  If we don't crack this one, VERY soon, we
            may run out of time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with
            the pressure-cooker environment we've created for
            ourselves.  David Attenborough is proposing that we
            seriously limit population growth; the Chinese have tried
            that and it didn't work - and it never will; the 'prime
            directive' built into our makeup by evolution is
            procreation.  Our planet is like a dandelion head full of
            seeds ready to fly - we've even been exploring the heavens
            around us for places to fly TO!  What we need now is the way
            to do it; I earnestly believe that the way to do it is there
            in a greater understanding of matter, space-time and
            gravitation - but not as long as the established scientific
            community insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and
            doggedly refuses to even look at things from a new
            perspective.</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Ok, off my
            soap-box now.  But I do really hope that a few of you out
            there will take a look at my paper posted with my last
            email; if there's something clearly wrong with it, please
            tell me - if not, please tell others! Thanks.</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
        <div> </div>
        <blockquote style="border-left:#000080 2px solid;
          padding-left:5px; padding-right:0px; margin-left:5px;
          margin-right:0px">
          <div style="font:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
          <div style="font:10pt arial; background:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="johnduffield@btconnect.com"
              href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">
              John Duffield</a> </div>
          <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
              moz-do-not-send="true"
              title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
              href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
              'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> </div>
          <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 20,
            2016 6:04 PM</div>
          <div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
            Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div class="WordSection1">
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Grahame:</span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I share
                your general sentiment. I’ll read through your paper and
                get back to you. Meanwhile I rather think the “shake the
                rug” waves are light waves. A gravitational field is a
                place where space is inhomogeneous, not curved. See what
                Percy Hammond says</span><span class="comment-copy"><span
                  style="font-family:'Georgia',serif; color:#242729;
                  font-size:10pt">
                  <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.compumag.org/jsite/images/stories/newsletter/ICS-99-06-2-Hammond.pdf">here</a>:
                  <i>"We conclude that the field describes the curvature
                    that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction"</i>.
                </span></span><span style="color:#1f497d"></span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Regards</span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">John D</span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
            <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
            <div>
              <div style="border-bottom:medium none; border-left:medium
                none; padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:0cm;
                padding-right:0cm; border-top:#e1e1e1 1pt solid;
                border-right:medium none; padding-top:3pt">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext"
                      lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
                    style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
                      Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
                    <b>Sent:</b> 20 August 2016 16:37<br>
                    <b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
                    Discussion
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
                    <b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Gravity and
                    ultraweak-photonemission</span></p>
              </div>
            </div>
            <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert,
                  Vladimir, Beverly et al.,</span><span
                  style="font-size:12pt"></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">There appear to be very strong reasons
                  to believe that gravitation is in fact an EM effect. 
                  If one starts from the premise that elementary
                  particles are themselves electromagnetic constructs
                  then it's almost a foregone conclusion.  That premise
                  was strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in
                  Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit & Wheeler
                  later that same year and proved beyond all reasonable
                  doubt at SLAC in 1997 by Burke et al. (Phys Rev Lett
                  79, pp1626-9).</span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">It's at times somewhat paradoxical to
                  me that physicists (present company excepted!) all too
                  often go looking for complicated explanations when
                  there's a simple one staring them in the face.  If one
                  simply sees the force of attraction between unlike
                  unit charges as being minutely greater than the force
                  of repulsion between like charges - and there's no
                  known reason why they should be identical (in fact
                  it's likely that they won't) - then gravitation drops
                  out totally naturally as the difference between those
                  two effects.  This would seem to sit well with Occam's
                  razor since it eliminates the need for one otherwise
                  totally unexplained cosmic force at a stroke.  We know
                  that every nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of
                  opposing charge (quarks) to give an overall charge; it
                  seems eminently likely that even those quarks are
                  formed from energies that, taken separately, would
                  give rise to either positive or negative charge
                  elements to give the overall charge for a quark - this
                  links the gravitational effect of a particle directly
                  to its total energy content and so to its total mass.</span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">I've attached a copy of my paper,
                  published in 'Kybernetes' five years ago, that details
                  this proposal for gravitation.  You'll see that it
                  posits the notion that space(-time) has a 'texture'
                  (also explaining its 'stiffness' and the 'curvature of
                  spacetime') given by the summation of all time-varying
                  EM field effects emanating from all of the material
                  particles in the universe - this of course draws on
                  the fact that electromagnetic fields are unlimited in
                  their reach (and electromagnetic potential is
                  unblockable - Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we
                  experience as a localised particle is just the 'core',
                  so to speak, of an electromagnetic field effect
                  unlimited in its extent.  The (-time) in brackets
                  above reflects the fact that this 'texture' of this
                  'neo-aether' is continually varying as celestial
                  bodies (and groups of celestial bodies) are
                  themselves in continuous motion, so also is their
                  contribution to this 'textured' continuum.</span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">I'd be most interested in any feedback
                  on this proposal, including of course any clear
                  reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be a
                  feasible proposition.  You'll note that this concept
                  includes a pretty thorough explanation for every
                  aspect of the Equivalence Principle as included in
                  GR.  There's also the strong implication that the
                  gravity waves recently detected are themselves
                  electromagnetic constructs (since the fabric of
                  spacetime is itself EM in nature, and so susceptible
                  to being 'shaken like a rug' by such waves); this may
                  have something to say to Beverly's field of interest,
                  since tidal forces are themselves in a sense a pale
                  shadow of gravity waves.</span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">Thanks all,</span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt">Grahame</span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-family:'Arial',sans-serif; color:navy;
                  font-size:10pt"></span> </p>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </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>