<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>See comments below.</p>
<p>I've also just made progress on a chapter I'm writing for my book
"Cognitive Action Theory" in which I do not assume the charge and
mass of particles are collocated, but instead treat charge and
mass as two different degrees of freedom connected by a force that
is not infinite. I then treat inertia as a field which specifies
the expected location of a particle mass by the rest of the
Universe. In other words a particle moving at velocity v and
position x should be expected to be at x+v*dt a time dt later by
the rest of the masses in the Universe. However if an external
force is applied the mass will not be at x+vdt but at x+v*dt + dx.
The deviation from the universe's expected position generates,for
small deviations, an attractive force Fi = -Kc*dx which exactly
balances the applied force. This implements Mach's principle be
replacing Newtons second Law with dAlambert's formula</p>
<p>0= F - m*a and by replacing m*a with Kc*dx <br>
</p>
<p>I should have the chapter ready cleaned up enough for comments in
a few weeks and with your permission will send it to you</p>
<p>best <br>
</p>
<p>wolf<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 5/6/2017 11:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>again some comments.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.05.2017 um 05:56 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@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 5/3/2017 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
In classic physics the universe is determined from beginning to
end given the initial conditions. This determinism includes your
brain which determines the decisions of your mind. Quantum
mechanics provides a way out by evoking the uncertainty
principle which I think is not fundamental.<br>
Instead I am building an event oriented physics in which
Isolated systems are fully determined until they interact with
each other. The interactions change the state from one
completely determined clock like system to another. So like
atoms these systems stay in a completely determined state and
are undetectable until interactions. Since independent systems
are not determined by the same universal clock measurements of
their state give random results.<br>
</blockquote>
Even without the uncertainty "principle" it would be interesting
for us to determine the further development of our universe. And
that is logically open for us except that we are religious and
assume that some "creator" has decided the final development
during creation.<br>
</blockquote>
But are we not the creator of our universe. Do we not live in the
model we create?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Regarding the "uncertainty principle" I have a very bad feeling as
in my understanding this is not a true uncertainty but a limited
knowledge of the state of particles. Heisenberg clearly has not
studied high frequency electronics; those engineer know this
effect from every-day work for the measurement of pulses. Some
call it the Nyquist effect. It is exactly the same like
Heisenberg's but less exciting. Did you look at the paper of
Chandra which he attached some days ago about uncertainty? I did
not work through it completely but it seems to have some good
points.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
limited knowledge yes I agree, perhaps a limit on the accuracy of
our measurement recording capability, but reality probably has sub
quantum structure<br>
No I just realized the Emails from the group is getting trashed.
Will check out the paper<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> Where do you see isolated systems in our world which
occasionally interact? And why would such interaction counteract
determinism? - By the way I do not believe that we need QM to
believe in a world where we can see some freedom of development.
As I wrote earlier, QM has not helped physics. It has caused a lot
of confusion and it has discouraged the physicist in their intend
to understand our world.<br>
</blockquote>
I agree. But do you think there may be a political structure behind
its popularity?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
Does not Mach's principle suggest inertia is a gravitational
effect ? <br>
</blockquote>
Mach's questions which resulted in the so called "Mach's
principle" were about inertia and rotation. Not about gravity.
Now, as he related inertia and rotation to the background of fixed
stars, one could ask the question how a logical connection between
this background and our close environment could work. And that
could make us conclude that gravity is involved. This is possible
but not for sure and I did not find it in any statement of Ernst
Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
Again the main reason is that mass appear in the equivalence
principle m*a =m*g <br>
There are two main divisions of long range forces forces, those
which have charge as source and those which have mass.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
I now your theory attempts to explain inertia but does not
address gravity and this biases you against acknowledging a
connection but there is no such connection is the fact that m*a
=m*g , with the same "m" not extremely coincident, beyond belief
I would say?<br>
</blockquote>
Main Stream physics say that there is an inertial mass and a
gravitational mass in the world. The cause of this concept is the
fact that any object has the same gravitational acceleration
independent of its mass. But we should be aware that this position
is also an interpretation. Another interpretation could be that
gravity has nothing to do with mass. In that view, it may not care
about mass. Gravity in this view is a refraction process which is
quite easily visible in the case of deflection of particles at the
sun. - But this is now my position.<br>
</blockquote>
What causes the refraction field?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
For Main Stream this "coincidence"as you call it is a complete
mystery. No one has an idea why this is as it is. Also Mach has to
my knowledge not given any statements about it.<br>
</blockquote>
Sciama's derivation of inertia as the gravitational version of the
magnetic field in EM<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
The shortest distance, the minimum action principle, canonical
transformations, and Einsteins formulation are alternative
coding schemes for the same phenomena - since I cannot visualize
curved 3d space and when I see two dimensional rubber surfaces
curved inward to a weight in the middle that causes the rubber
sheet to bend and shortest distances to be curved, I and others
ask, what causes the central mass to push down? somewhere it is
easier to imagine forces in a Cartesian flat space Why? because
our minds are built with this capacity.<br>
</blockquote>
There are specific situations where it is possible to describe a
situation by a curved space or space-time. And in specific
situations there is a level of presentation which looks simple and
elegant. And that has surely encouraged Einstein to understand
this as a good way to do physics. But in the general case it makes
things unnecessarily complicated. That is particularly true for
GRT. I have as a demonstration shown (in talks) two ways to deduce
the Schwarzschild solution. The way of Einstein (which I have
copied from textbooks) is a sequence of more than 80 equations,
very complicated as they need Riemannian geometry (i.e. 4-dim
curved space geometry); and alternatively the concept of gravity
as a refraction process. The exactly same result using a sequence
of ca. 20 equations and Euclidean geometry. Can be taught at
school. But the leading persons in GRT tell me that they find the
way of Einstein "more elegant". So, just a matter of taste. No
idea how to argue in this case. <br>
</blockquote>
I agree, you have a short and elegant process. Why is it not main
stream? my only explanation besides politics is that your basic
premise involves two particles, perhaps charges, that rotate at the
speed of light and produce a potential that has a minimum at the
orbital radius and that initial postulate seems complicated and
contrived and does not explain anything beyond what has already been
explained. So you are offering a simpler derivation in exchange for
a complicated Ansatz <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
If we calculate the force of gravity on the earth from a
retarded potential that emanates at the speed of light a small
tangential force would exist that would make the earth slowly
spiral outward, this would have been noticed over the several
thousand years observations have been made. No Newtons model
requires gravity to come from where objects are seen at infinite
speed and it seems to work.<br>
</blockquote>
How do you calculate this? Which causes the tangential force?
Would it be also this way if the binding force would not be
gravity but an electrostatic field? For the electric field the
theory tells us that there is no tangential force. Why just for
gravity? (Didn't we discuss this earlier?)<br>
</blockquote>
Yes Newtons action at a distance calculates the observed position of
planets sun moon etc with great accuracy using the assumption that
the gravity force comes from the location of the light not from a
retarded position . Yes we talked about this and the van Flanders
paper calculates the the effect. A small tangential force that would
slowly make the earth and all planets spiral outwards at a rate not
actually observed.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
It is my understanding that both observers conclude the others
clocks must slow down. The slow down is due to v squared over c
squared in Gamma<br>
</blockquote>
It can be understood in the way that this is a symmetrical
situation as long as there is only straight motion. But in the
moment when one twin turns to come back he changes the frame of
reference. And in that moment symmetry is no longer the case. As I
have shown above, the new frame of the returning twin has an
offset in time with respect to the earlier frame. But only this
one has the offset, the other one not! <br>
<br>
For an easier understanding: If one believes that there is an
absolute frame at rest, then only the twin not travelling can stay
in that frame. If the other one would initially be in the frame at
rest, he leaves it as soon as he turns.<br>
</blockquote>
Yres I've seen explanations that include the gravitational
acceleration and deceleration for one of the twins, but one can set
up a situation in which the completely symetric impulses are felt by
both observers and and the coast time is as long as one wants <br>
i do not understand what you mean by an observer leaving his
reference frame.<br>
Each observer measures the world through his reference frame how can
he leave? Unless you are talking about a transcendental god like
point of view?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly
investigated with the result that gravity propagates with c. <br>
</blockquote>
One would think so and I've admired Einstein since I learned
about the 4'th dimension in Mr. Andersons Science class in the
9th grade, but now I have had a chance to do more investigation
and much of what I was taught is not as sold as it was taught.
The argument Jefmenko put forward is quite simple. the 43 deg
precession per century was a well known error in the residual
calculation of the effects of planet and Sun motion on Mercury <br>
using Newtron's instantaneous gravity forces, If it were
calculated ( but I understand it cannot) using Einsteins
equations the answer for the residual would be different,
therefore the fact that Einstein explains the 43seconds is an
inconsistency. Perhaps it has been thoroughly discussed but this
as well as many other contradictions and paradoxes have been
thoroughly ignored from what I know. <br>
</blockquote>
I did not follow this calculation for Mercury myself. But as far
as I know many have done it. And one point has also to be taken
into account. There are a lot of corrections to be done if the
orbit of Mercury is calculated. Einstein's correction was only a
small contribution, but it was the contribution which made the
result perfect. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
No. Einstein calculated the precession of Mercury itself and found
it to be 43sec/cent different from the Newtonian calculation which
calculated a value using the perturbations from the outer planets <br>
but Einstein did not calculate the precession using the
perturbation from the outer planets i fact according to Jefimenko
Einsten should have calculated the precession using his theory to
calculate the effect of the outer planets. If he had done so the
error would no longer be 43 seconds. so the fact that Enstein
explaind the 43seconds without taking into account the outer planets
is a mistake and his exact 43seconds/ century calculation is proof
that his theory was specifically designed to give the impression of
accuracy when it is not.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> In my view it should not be necessary to use curved
space-time. But there is one influence which was of course not
taken into account before Einstein. When Mercury is passing the
perihelion then it is faster than in the other positions. And
there it has to be taken into account that the mass of Mercury
increases. I expect that this could be sufficient to have the
right correction.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
Einstein and Mach had a falling out when Mach did not like
Einsteins formulation.<br>
See
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">Sciama D. W. (1953) “On the Origin
of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S., Vol.113,1953 p.34 URL:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf">http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt">I think someone showed
this derivation was compatible with Einsteins formulation but
I have not found the reference yet<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Would be interesting, but I cannot find / open this URL.<br>
</blockquote>
See two papers attached<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt"> <span
style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cbaer%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1457599964;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:884526342 1008339786 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:27.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:27.0pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-style:normal;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>