<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Chandra:</p>
<p>I must have lost the reference to Chips paper but re-read the
attached paper on the uncertainty principle and think it is a very
good critique and warning why not to take analogies as proofs of
otherwise theoretical/mathematical conjectures. I especially like
the narrow beam laser summation of two independent single slit
experiment that leads to the double slit pattern. One would think
this proves wave interference not quantum particle splitting is
the physical phenomena. I myself did a reverse double slit
experiment by shining a laser on the edges of two razor blades,
simply looking at these with my eye made it very clear that the
interference pattern was produced by the excitation of two linear
antennas i.e. the sharp parallel razor edges. A similar careful
examination of a double slit one can actually see the each side of
each slit being excited as well. The eye when properly used is a
marvelous instrument.</p>
<p>In any case elevating what looks to be an empirical description
to a fundamental law feels more like dogma than science. but what
to do about it? I feel ike I'm watching the marvelous street
singer who gets a few dollars outside the Metropolitan opera. Its
not the song that makes the difference.<br>
</p>
<p>thanks for sending it.</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 5/2/2017 4:14 PM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234E60898F0BB420572316193170@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Hi Chip: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Your ambitious
philosophical approach, “On the Foundation of Physics”, is
definitely impressive. I have not spend enough time to
assess whether your approach could yield any major
breakthrough in physics. I hope it does.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">However, as you
are aware, I am a very “classical” thinker when it comes to
photon. I am with Planck, the real father of quantized
energy release. Planck’s photon always propagates as a wave
packet within the Blackbody cavity. Based on Planck’s views,
I have defined “Photon = h-nu” as only a transient
quantum-brick at the moment of quantum transition.
Immediately thereafter, the “photon-brick” emergences as a
quasi-exponential propagating harmonic of the CTF (Complex
Tension Field). During absorption (transition) of “h-Nu”
out of the “spread out” EM waves, the atomic and molecular
quantum dipoles function as “h-nu quantum cups”. We do not
need any quantization of the EM waves.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I based my model
to accommodate the ancient and modern spectrometric
observations and also based upon my causal theory of
spectrometers (in my book). Old classical spectrometric
theory is non-causal as it starts with infinitely existing
Fourier mode. Formalism of Quantum Mechanics never developed
proper concepts (or guidelines) as to how a spectrometer
generates certain “spectral width” as the light passes
through a spectrometer. In fact, this one of the most
fundamental philosophical (methodology of thinking) problem
of quantum mechanics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">PS: Apparently, at
his thesis defense, Heisenberg was asked by Wien to explain
the root cause behind the “resolving power limit” of a
microscope, or a telescope, or a spectroscope. Young
Heisenberg was totally silent! He still passed the exam to
write his famous paper rationalizing “Indeterminacy” as a
nature’s inherent property, rather than as a pure functional
limit of human constructed instruments. Today, we optically
image molecules with resolving powers thousands of time
smaller than “Lambda/2” known by people during Heisenberg’s
time. I have a 1978 paper criticizing this kind of thinking
(see attached). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 01, 2017 4:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Found an error in some of the math.
Corrected version of this working draft attached.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 01, 2017 5:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Wolf
(et al.),</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">My
response is below your response to Albrecht's response to
a small fragment of my earlier response to your response
to Al.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message -----
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
title="phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
title="af.kracklauer@web.de">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Monday, May 01, 2017 2:47 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><u>Grahame,</u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you say: " ... <span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">
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</span> ... "<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">[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.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">[*
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.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><u>Wolf,</u><o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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).
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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?
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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!<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I agree but
does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's principle
not answer this question?<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Wolf
et al,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message -----
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
title="wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolfgang Baer</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
title="af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
title="phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Friday, April 28, 2017 11:11 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p>Al:<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="83">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
height="29" border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="705">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
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"
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<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>