<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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>
<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>
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
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
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>
<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
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
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
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
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>
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
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>
</body>
</html>