<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Grahame:</p>
<p>My computer did some funny things and just found your response
and paper, will read and comment, sounds interesting.</p>
<p>regarding your comments:</p>
<p>To Grahame: We are so used to causality and computer symbols that
we write m*a = F and think F causes acceleration. But mathematical
equations express a condition. The dAlambert principle expresses
Newtons law as 0= F - ma or 0 = F + Fa , This should be read as
the condition not a causal equation. Physical material can only
happen where all forces are zero. No causality. Therefore simply a
structural condition on possible configurations of a Block
Universe. In that sense everything already exists we just become
aware of the part we call Now as we move through it.</p>
<p>To Baer: I'm doing some calculations that will work out better if
gravity and inertial effects propagate infinitely fast that is why
I am so interested in this question right now.</p>
<p> However more to your points I have become aware of the fact that
I live in my own Universe and can therefore treat the apparent
reality of space and time as hosted in the Block Universe memory
of my bigger self in which the big "I" present the smaller "i"
self as the personal experience of my body. Though under normal
operations my Now is defined by the interaction points with
external Block Universe beings, I can presumably access all parts
of my memory and therefore the model of reality I store in it. (if
we discover a new tooth in the ground we instantly update our
memory of dinosaurs millions of years ago. Now assume there is a
scale factor between my model and the external world outside my
memory (i.e. my time and space ) Which in my theory is based on
action units , then I get a scale relationship <br>
</p>
<p>
a = Scale * A <br>
</p>
<p>where big A is the external system I adopt as my clock , usually
the action in the universe i.e. the total gravitational self
energy times time (Mu*c^2 * Tu), and "a" is the action of my
memory structure. <br>
</p>
<p>I now confuse my model and its scale with the actual external
clock-universe then what are updates to my model will be much
closer and faster than the actual happenings in the external
clock-universe my model represents. but since I'm thinking in
symbolic model terms I do not notice the difference, I think I'm
living in the real world not my model of it. Thus if gravity and
inertia ends up being a model calculation , which i suspect it is
and Einsteins Space time warp is a physical effect on my
eletro-magnetically constructed memory cells, then I could end up
with a nearly infinite speed. <br>
</p>
<p>I realize this is more poetic than physics but something feels
right.</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 5/1/2017 3:14 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D82C04F856C412084C4F04BFEBCD6A9@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf (et al.),</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Regards,</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="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>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 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">
<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>
<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 face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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 face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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 face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">[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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">[* 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> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">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>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>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>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>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 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
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"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></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>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p> </p>
<hr> _______________________________________________<br>
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:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</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:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>