<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><u>Grahame,</u></p>
<p>you say: " ... <font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2"> 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</font> ... "<br>
</p>
<p> 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.</p>
<p><u>Wolf,</u></p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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<sup>2</sup>. (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). <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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? <br>
</p>
<p>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!<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:7B2170EF96E8400C91DE997FA3D54D85@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf et al,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Best,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></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; font-color:
black"><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" title="af.kracklauer@web.de"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true" title="phys@a-giese.de"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 28,
2017 11:11 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] HA:
Gravity</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Al:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>