<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:478961301;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-21605578 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Chip:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><![endif]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Gamma Rays:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">I have written earlier in this forum and in other publications that serious attempts to bring conceptual continuity between the domain of the Gamma “rays”
and the rest of the EM waves by successfully imposing some logically congruent postulates (guided by diverse experiments in both the domain), will open up new physics. We know that even X-rays diffract and reflect like waves. Ritter from our group have also
done some experiments to demonstrate that Gamma’s are wave-like too. But, then, particle diffraction also shows superposition effect. Gammas are also divisible like rest of the EM waves. But, at high energy, even stable particles are also divisible!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><![endif]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Proposed Rb-atom & double slit experiment to resolve wave-particle duality:
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">See the last section of the attached paper where I have proposed experiment for a double-slit Rb-beam experiment to resolve wave particle duality. The key
assumption is that particles have velocity dependent harmonic oscillations which give rise to phase-dependent superposition effects on detecting molecules when multiple particles try to stimulate them simultaneously. The math is in Ch.11 of my book, “Causal
Physics”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><![if !supportLists]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><![endif]><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Uncertainty
</span></b><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C00000">Principle and Social Consequences</span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">:
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">OK. We are basically in agreement. However, I am of the opinion that human knowledge is not advanced enough to declare a validate-able mathematical theory
or its derivative, as a </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C00000">PRINCIPLE</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> of nature. Our validated theories are
only </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C00000">working rules</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">. Our current knowledge is only work in progress.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> This is not just a philosophical quibbling! We have taught the society (and several generations of young scientists) since the early nineteen hundreds,
that Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc., are inviolable theories. Forget about esoteric debate about Copenhagen Interpretation among the physicists. General public and uneducated politicians have learnt to think real science is inviolable. That is where comes
the serious social education and social problem. The </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C00000">precise and quantitative connection</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C00000">
(how much?) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">between Global Warming and CO2 production by humans can always be debated for political, economic and ideological benefits. That is precisely being carried
on by the powerful vested interests. We have dumbed down our society to remain victim of sly propaganda.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> I believe, if we have been teaching always that all of our knowledge are just “working knowledge” for continued improvements, and not absolute truth;
then the large social majority would have mentally remained open to taking socio-economic actions based upon the best working current knowledge, rather than falling victim to deliberate false propaganda for narrow and immediate economic benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",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 [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 08, 2017 9:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><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 Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding “photons”. My treatment of photons in the paper is limited to the gamma photon with the energy of an electron. So far I have no way to determine the nature of a much weaker photon, but it may well be very similar to your approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we study the nature of energy reaction with space at the energy level of the electron, we find some properties of space at these energy densities which appear to be universal (at these energy densities), but this does not mean that
we would see the same behavior at lower energy densities. In fact experiment indicates we do not see this same set exact of relationships.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As you have noted, the behavior of photons in the gamma spectrum seems to be more discrete than at lower energies. While in energy transfer we still see that E=hv, there are many way for this relationship to remain, including a more wavelike
and less particle-like energy packet at lower energies. But one thing is certain, energy density has an effect on the “quantization” of that energy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regarding Heisenberg’s “uncertainty”. When we set up the oscillatory conditions of the particle correctly this uncertainty exactly equals Nyquist sampling theorem. So I agree that it is our knowledge of the state of the particle which
is limited, and there is no real uncertainty except that caused by Nyquist’s theorem.<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 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>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a 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"><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 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 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 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 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 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 href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" title="phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a> ; <a 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 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 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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" title="af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> ;
<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" title="phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a> ; <a 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"><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 href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a 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" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="83" style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a 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 border="0" width="46" height="29" 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"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td width="705" style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a 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" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</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 href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href="<a 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>
</body>
</html>