<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>some comments and answers in the text below<font size="+1">:</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 01.05.2017 um 03:47 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
The original topic here was the question whether gravity propagates
at infinite speed. I have understood Grahame in the way that in his
view everything in the universe is already determined (as you write
it). And as a counter argument I have given examples of
gravitational processes which are not already determined but
permanently changing. Particularly the experiment which I described
depends on the ideas and intention of the experimenter. And his mind
is by general understanding not determined for all times.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
But gravity has nothing to do with inertia. Newton may have believed
this but present physics has a different position. And Einstein's
gravity depends on energy, not on inertia.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
Again: I do not see any connection of gravity with inertia.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
For those who believe that they understand theories like GRT or QM
it is surely essential to feel that they are superior to most of the
mankind regarding understanding. However, I do not believe that this
was Einstein's motivation to develop a space-time related theory. He
believed that it was the true nature. In my view he did not see that
his space-time is nothing than a mathematical trick. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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. </blockquote>
Why this? I do not see the logical necessity for this.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">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>
The twin paradox is in fact very simple. With respect to SRT it is
nothing else than a change of the reference system. Look at the
time-related Lorentz transformation:<br>
tau = gamma(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)<br>
When the travelling twin turns to come back, the sign in front of
"v" changes and so the proper time tau jumps to a new time. - That
is not very physical but it is what the Lorentz formalism tells us.<br>
<br>
The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly investigated
with the result that gravity propagates with c. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
What has Mach's principle to do with vector potential? For my
feeling Mach's principle is mostly incorrectly interpreted. The name
"Mach's principle" was created by Einstein, but it is not a proper
title. <br>
Mach's question and argument was how in the absence of an aether
acceleration can be defined (or equivalently what a straight motion
is). In his view an aether is necessary to define acceleration. And,
to give this aether (which was nothing more then a frame of
reference) a spatial reference or orientation, he referred it to our
environment of fixed stars. That sounds reasonable to me but it does
not explain why or how this reference is realized in the universe.<br>
<br>
In my view it would be plausible to refer this frame not to the
fixed stars around but to the origin of the Big Bang. And in some
way the material in our universe still remembers the position of the
Big Bang.<br>
<br>
To those who refer gravitation to the electric force my question is
how the gravitational constant can be deduced from the electric
field; quantitatively!<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>