<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<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 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
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. 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. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </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>
</blockquote>
I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's
principle not answer this question?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29"
width="46"></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</tbody>
</table>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"> </a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>