<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf (et al.),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>My response is below your response to
Albrecht's response to a small fragment of my earlier response to your response
to Al.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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 title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang
Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=phys@a-giese.de
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</A> ; <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
; <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 01, 2017 2:47 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] HA: Gravity</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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">
<P><U>Grahame,</U></P>
<P>you say: " ... <FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial> 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>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>No - Grahame is simply referring to
the universal principle of causality*, coupled with the well-established fact
that a massive object at one location influences, to some degree, the
behaviour of every other massive object at every other location. This
makes no suppositions as to what might be termed a 'clockwork universe',
indeed it permits (without supposition of any of these options): a totally
non-deterministic universe; underlying causation of supposed quantum
non-determinism (I personally regard such causation as 100% consistent
with so-called 'wavefunction collapse'); MWI (though I personally have a fair
degree of contempt for this concept); influence at a sub-quantum level of
nonphysical universal consciousness (aka panpsychism) on supposedly
non-deterministic quantum events - a totally valid scientific option which is
dismissed by most present-day mainstream physicists on grounds that
appear ideological rather than scientifically-based (I have yet to see any
scientific evidence for this dogmatism).</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I hope that clarifies my position -
and I believe that you'll find this position 100% consistent with the proposal
that I have put forward regarding gravitation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[For completeness I'd agree that
we're talking about events in dynamic states which interact with other events
also in dynamic states and the interactions change both states; if we're not,
then we're not talking about any universe that I've ever lived
in.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>[* It's possible that there is a
higher principle of causality, not subject to time constraints. This
possibility is beyond the scope of this discussion - and probably beyond the
scope of human understanding at its present state of evolution.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<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 name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wolf et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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 color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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 color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>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 title=wolf@nascentinc.com href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang Baer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=af.kracklauer@web.de
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">af.kracklauer@web.de</A> ; <A
title=phys@a-giese.de href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</A> ; <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<TBODY>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"><IMG
style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
width=46 height=29 moz-do-not-send="true"></A></TD>
<TD
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; COLOR: #41424e; FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei.
<A style="COLOR: #4453ea"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</A>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><A href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="1" width="1"></A></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>