<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>my original mail failed in some way. Now the answer to yours.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 07.05.2017 um 08:52 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>Albrecht:</p>
<p>See comments below.</p>
<p>I've also just made progress on a chapter I'm writing for my
book "Cognitive Action Theory" in which I do not assume the
charge and mass of particles are collocated, but instead treat
charge and mass as two different degrees of freedom connected by
a force that is not infinite. I then treat inertia as a field
which specifies the expected location of a particle mass by the
rest of the Universe. In other words a particle moving at
velocity v and position x should be expected to be at x+v*dt a
time dt later by the rest of the masses in the Universe. However
if an external force is applied the mass will not be at x+vdt
but at x+v*dt + dx. The deviation from the universe's expected
position generates,for small deviations, an attractive force Fi
= -Kc*dx which exactly balances the applied force. This
implements Mach's principle be replacing Newtons second Law with
dAlambert's formula</p>
<p>0= F - m*a and by replacing m*a with Kc*dx <br>
</p>
<p>I should have the chapter ready cleaned up enough for comments
in a few weeks and with your permission will send it to you</p>
<p>best <br>
</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
To your introduction above: <br>
<br>
It is surely true that charge and mass are not collocated. But they
are - also by MainStream understanding - different categories of
entities. Charge is a static object. It is a permanent property of
something. In contrast, mass is a dynamical process. This is true
for MainStream (i.e. the Higgs model) as well as for my model. The
force related to a charge depends on the amount of the charge and
also from the distance between the involved charges. The force
related to a mass is dependent on the mass (of course) and on the
acceleration. Where the essential question is, to which object or to
which motion state the acceleration is related. The latter is the
question which Mach wanted to discuss, and his idea (that it is the
motion state of the fixed stars) was called Mach's principle (by
Einstein). I think, it is a too big word related to the object; and
I think that this is not only my opinion but it was also the opinion
of Mach himself.<br>
<br>
Question to your considerations above: what do you mean by "Kc" or
by "K" if c is the speed of light.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </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 5/6/2017 11:42 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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">
<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">
<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">
<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>
Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were
everything is already determined and therefore in one
state determined by the initial conditions, actually any
single description in a time instance. Then we are talking
about events in dynamic states which interact with other
events also in dynamic states and the interactions change
both states. <br>
</blockquote>
The original topic here was the question whether gravity
propagates at infinite speed. I have understood Grahame in
the way that in his view everything in the universe is
already determined (as you write it). And as a counter
argument I have given examples of gravitational processes
which are not already determined but permanently changing.
Particularly the experiment which I described depends on the
ideas and intention of the experimenter. And his mind is by
general understanding not determined for all times.<br>
</blockquote>
In classic physics the universe is determined from beginning
to end given the initial conditions. This determinism includes
your brain which determines the decisions of your mind.
Quantum mechanics provides a way out by evoking the
uncertainty principle which I think is not fundamental.<br>
Instead I am building an event oriented physics in which
Isolated systems are fully determined until they interact with
each other. The interactions change the state from one
completely determined clock like system to another. So like
atoms these systems stay in a completely determined state and
are undetectable until interactions. Since independent systems
are not determined by the same universal clock measurements of
their state give random results.<br>
</blockquote>
Even without the uncertainty "principle" it would be interesting
for us to determine the further development of our universe. And
that is logically open for us except that we are religious and
assume that some "creator" has decided the final development
during creation.<br>
</blockquote>
But are we not the creator of our universe. Do we not live in the
model we create?<br>
</blockquote>
Our present understanding of natural science is that there is an
universe independent of any human individual and of his/her
fantasies and intentions. Maybe that this understanding is not
correct. But any alternative assumption about the world would
discourage us to investigate this world (at least in my opinion).
And in the case that also our human decisions are predetermined and
so are fixed then these predetermined decisions are not correlated
to the ongoing of the universe. Except - as I said - that there is a
creator which has correlated all this intentionally to cause a
specific goal for the world. - But that is definitely religion.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
Regarding the "uncertainty principle" I have a very bad feeling
as in my understanding this is not a true uncertainty but a
limited knowledge of the state of particles. Heisenberg clearly
has not studied high frequency electronics; those engineer know
this effect from every-day work for the measurement of pulses.
Some call it the Nyquist effect. It is exactly the same like
Heisenberg's but less exciting. Did you look at the paper of
Chandra which he attached some days ago about uncertainty? I did
not work through it completely but it seems to have some good
points.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
limited knowledge yes I agree, perhaps a limit on the accuracy of
our measurement recording capability, but reality probably has sub
quantum structure<br>
No I just realized the Emails from the group is getting trashed.
Will check out the paper<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> Where do you see isolated systems in our world
which occasionally interact? And why would such interaction
counteract determinism? - By the way I do not believe that we
need QM to believe in a world where we can see some freedom of
development. As I wrote earlier, QM has not helped physics. It
has caused a lot of confusion and it has discouraged the
physicist in their intend to understand our world.<br>
</blockquote>
I agree. But do you think there may be a political structure
behind its popularity?<br>
</blockquote>
There is an interesting book of Paul Forman:<br>
"Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927:
Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile
Intellectual Environment"<br>
<br>
In Forman's opinion the political situation in Germany in the 1020s
has promoted Quantum Mechanics - not by the intention of someone but
by the spirit of that time: World War I was lost for Germany and
most people did not understand it. And there was the economical
crisis which seemed to be out of control. So, a physical theory
which says that the development of the physical world is generally
not predictable did fit into the general expectation. Forman says
that this was a good condition for the acceptance of QM.
<div style="left: 83.3333px; top: 340.43px; font-size: 18.3333px;
font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.12141);">Author(<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p><u>Wolf,</u></p>
<p>there was an interesting development in our
understanding of the physics of gravity. About a
hundred years ago it was the general opinion that
gravity is the simplest and most fundamental force in
physics. This may also have been the reason that
gravity is a fundamental parameter in the definition
of the Planck units. At present, however, the
representatives of the German Einstein Institute say
that gravity is the least understood and perhaps most
complicated force. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have
learned more specifically that inertia is not just an
intrinsic property a la N's 1st Law, but perhaps the
result of a vector potential or a side effect of other
forces like your theory.<br>
</blockquote>
But gravity has nothing to do with inertia. Newton may have
believed this but present physics has a different position.
And Einstein's gravity depends on energy, not on inertia.<br>
</blockquote>
Does not Mach's principle suggest inertia is a gravitational
effect ? <br>
</blockquote>
Mach's questions which resulted in the so called "Mach's
principle" were about inertia and rotation. Not about gravity.
Now, as he related inertia and rotation to the background of
fixed stars, one could ask the question how a logical connection
between this background and our close environment could work.
And that could make us conclude that gravity is involved. This
is possible but not for sure and I did not find it in any
statement of Ernst Mach.<br>
</blockquote>
Again the main reason is that mass appear in the equivalence
principle m*a =m*g <br>
There are two main divisions of long range forces forces, those
which have charge as source and those which have mass.<br>
</blockquote>
Mach has asked the question whether inertia and rotation can be
defined if there is no kind of an aether. If aether is taken as the
existence of a fixed reference system as Hendrik Lorentz has assumed
it, then one can ask the question which physical fact or situation
defines the motion state of this aether. He thought that it may be
defined by the position of our fixed star background. There is
nothing more contained in the so called Mach's principle.<br>
<br>
Regarding forces there are four, besides gravity there are the
strong, the weak, and the electric force. The strong and the weak
force are understood as short range forces. But in my view they are
long range forces like the electrical one, but they are realized in
the particles as multi-pole forces and that explains the short
range. And this assumption can yield good results in the
understanding of particles.<br>
<br>
And in my view gravity is not a force at all but a refraction
process (which means a side effect of other forces). Best visible at
the deflection of particles at the sun which is best explained as a
refraction process (this is my personal idea but also assumed and
calculated by well known cosmologists like Roman Sexl. And in so far
also presented in text books.)<br>
<br>
The weak equivalence is completely non-understood by Main Stream
physics. The refraction model can explain it as the refraction
overrules the inertia. This works and it is the only workable
explanation these days.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>The idea to connect gravity in some way to the
electric force comes up again and again. The reason is
most probably that both follow the dependence of range
of 1/r<sup>2</sup>. (But this dependence can be
explained geometrically if we assume that forces are
generally mediated by exchange particles.) The idea of
Jefimenko that there is a cogravitation as a kind of
different charge sign to make it compatible with
electricity is a new and severe assumption. I find it
better not to permanently introduce new - an
unobserved - phenomena than to try to live with the
existing ones (= Occam's razor). <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product
force to Newton he also adds a gravitational force to the
field since it contains energy and ends up with 5 forces.
However Sciamma's vector potential explaining inertia is
Jefimenko's main point.<br>
</blockquote>
Again: I do not see any connection of gravity with inertia.<br>
</blockquote>
I now your theory attempts to explain inertia but does not
address gravity and this biases you against acknowledging a
connection but there is no such connection is the fact that
m*a =m*g , with the same "m" not extremely coincident, beyond
belief I would say?<br>
</blockquote>
Main Stream physics say that there is an inertial mass and a
gravitational mass in the world. The cause of this concept is
the fact that any object has the same gravitational acceleration
independent of its mass. But we should be aware that this
position is also an interpretation. Another interpretation could
be that gravity has nothing to do with mass. In that view, it
may not care about mass. Gravity in this view is a refraction
process which is quite easily visible in the case of deflection
of particles at the sun. - But this is now my position.<br>
</blockquote>
What causes the refraction field?<br>
</blockquote>
The speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. The degree
of reduction depends on the distance from the centre of gravity and
on the size (mass?) of the source. This applied to the internal
oscillation of c in a particle yields the Newtonian gravity in the
non-relativistic case and the Einsteinian gravity (i.e. GRT) in the
relativistic case. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
For Main Stream this "coincidence"as you call it is a complete
mystery. No one has an idea why this is as it is. Also Mach has
to my knowledge not given any statements about it.<br>
</blockquote>
Sciama's derivation of inertia as the gravitational version of the
magnetic field in EM<br>
</blockquote>
This is not a workable explanation in my view by the following
reason. The magnetic field is only existing for an observer (or a
charge) in certain motion states. If there is a magnetic field
noticed by an observer (or by a charge) then the observer (or
charge) can go into a motion state in which the magnetic field
disappears. In case of inertia this is not possible. If there is
inertia, an observer may change to any motion state and the inertial
mass will never disappear. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical
phenomenon, changing the understanding of space and
time. On the other hand Theodor Kaluza has irritated
Einstein with his hint that any force in physics can
be explained by a specific geometry of space and time.
(Einstein has accepted that but was not happy with
it.) So, why not go back to physics and to forces in
gravity rather than using space-time.</p>
</blockquote>
Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and
models are written drawn or imagined on a background space
that is both fixed and meaningless as anything but a
structural support. I Found it impossible to to imagine
space time warping so from a heuristic necessity it is
simply easier to imagine particles and forces between
them. However there is clearly a tendency in physics to be
proud of theories that no one understands. <br>
</blockquote>
For those who believe that they understand theories like GRT
or QM it is surely essential to feel that they are superior
to most of the mankind regarding understanding. However, I
do not believe that this was Einstein's motivation to
develop a space-time related theory. He believed that it was
the true nature. In my view he did not see that his
space-time is nothing than a mathematical trick. <br>
</blockquote>
The shortest distance, the minimum action principle, canonical
transformations, and Einsteins formulation are alternative
coding schemes for the same phenomena - since I cannot
visualize curved 3d space and when I see two dimensional
rubber surfaces curved inward to a weight in the middle that
causes the rubber sheet to bend and shortest distances to be
curved, I and others ask, what causes the central mass to push
down? somewhere it is easier to imagine forces in a Cartesian
flat space Why? because our minds are built with this
capacity.<br>
</blockquote>
There are specific situations where it is possible to describe a
situation by a curved space or space-time. And in specific
situations there is a level of presentation which looks simple
and elegant. And that has surely encouraged Einstein to
understand this as a good way to do physics. But in the general
case it makes things unnecessarily complicated. That is
particularly true for GRT. I have as a demonstration shown (in
talks) two ways to deduce the Schwarzschild solution. The way of
Einstein (which I have copied from textbooks) is a sequence of
more than 80 equations, very complicated as they need Riemannian
geometry (i.e. 4-dim curved space geometry); and alternatively
the concept of gravity as a refraction process. The exactly same
result using a sequence of ca. 20 equations and Euclidean
geometry. Can be taught at school. But the leading persons in
GRT tell me that they find the way of Einstein "more elegant".
So, just a matter of taste. No idea how to argue in this case. <br>
</blockquote>
I agree, you have a short and elegant process. Why is it not main
stream? my only explanation besides politics is that your basic
premise involves two particles, perhaps charges, that rotate at
the speed of light and produce a potential that has a minimum at
the orbital radius and that initial postulate seems complicated
and contrived and does not explain anything beyond what has
already been explained. So you are offering a simpler derivation
in exchange for a complicated Ansatz <br>
</blockquote>
To understand my model one has to understand (and also visualize)
the process of inertia. If this is achieved all the rest is very
simple. If this is not done, all the rest is open and my statements
look arbitrary.<br>
<br>
Can my model of inertia be understood? I am presenting it since 16
years now and my experiences are very different. If I explain it,
some of the people say that they are unable to understand this
mechanism, even professors of theoretical physics have said it.
Others (physicists and engineers) react with total enthusiasm and
wonder why no one has found this mechanism earlier. It is in fact a
funny situation.<br>
<br>
There are two typical reactions are in favour of this mechanism. My
web site about "origin of mass" is since 15 years permanently the
no. 1 in the search engines (only sometimes it was overtaken by
Noble price laureate Frank Wilczek). And when I present the model at
the conferences of the German Physical Society, my auditory is
always about 10 times the auditory of comparable talks. So, many
seem to understand it, and just at the last conference some told me
explicitly that they are really enthusiastic about the model. <br>
<br>
I am surprised about the non-understanding because I do not only
describe the model qualitatively but present a quantitative
calculation. What else can one do?<br>
<br>
But those who do not understand the model or do not take their time
to follow it, those have arguments that an electron cannot have
sub-constituents. Because in that case there is a clear conflict
with the experiments. It is essential for the conflict-free
functionality that the constituents do not have any mass at all. <br>
<br>
If this model is, however, understood and accepted, then the rest is
very simple and straight ahead. Particularly if it is compared with
the complicated (and anyway not working) Higgs model. In detail:
there must be two constituents to fulfil conservation of momentum.
There must be this motion with c to explain relativistic dilation.
There must be a circular motion to make a spin and a magnetic moment
possible.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p>Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity:
To my knowledge this was carefully investigated in
past decades with the result that also gravity is
limited to c. I do not go back to the details. Should
there be new arguments which are not covered by the
past discussions then this would be a good reason to
investigate this case again. But are there new
arguments? <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is
used by astronomers and orbital space engineers with great
success yet requires the speed of light to be infinite or
at least several orders of magnitude larger than "c" has
never to my knowledge been explained. </blockquote>
Why this? I do not see the logical necessity for this.<br>
</blockquote>
If we calculate the force of gravity on the earth from a
retarded potential that emanates at the speed of light a small
tangential force would exist that would make the earth slowly
spiral outward, this would have been noticed over the several
thousand years observations have been made. No Newtons model
requires gravity to come from where objects are seen at
infinite speed and it seems to work.<br>
</blockquote>
How do you calculate this? Which causes the tangential force?
Would it be also this way if the binding force would not be
gravity but an electrostatic field? For the electric field the
theory tells us that there is no tangential force. Why just for
gravity? (Didn't we discuss this earlier?)<br>
</blockquote>
Yes Newtons action at a distance calculates the observed position
of planets sun moon etc with great accuracy using the assumption
that the gravity force comes from the location of the light not
from a retarded position . Yes we talked about this and the van
Flanders paper calculates the the effect. A small tangential force
that would slowly make the earth and all planets spiral outwards
at a rate not actually observed.<br>
</blockquote>
We have discussed this earlier. One can build a planetary model
where the attraction is not caused by gravity but by electric
charges. And in that case one could also argue that there is a
tangential force, as the potential of the partner is seen as a
retarded one. But for this electric case I have referred you to
calculations in text books showing that this does not happen. The
field vector of the attracting (or repelling) field does not point
to the position where the charge was when the field was emitted, but
it points to the actual position of the charge. (Lienard-Wiechert
Potential). As gravitational and electric fields propagate in the
same way there is no reason not to accept the same mechanism. <br>
<br>
Maybe another argument: If there would be an accelerated or
decelerated rotation this would violate the conservation of energy.
- Perhaps I can find an argument which can be easier visualized. I
am looking for it. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">It like the twin paradox and the inconsistency
of the perihelion of Mercury precession is brought up and
then ignored and brought up again by the next generation
and then ignored. <br>
</blockquote>
The twin paradox is in fact very simple. With respect to SRT
it is nothing else than a change of the reference system.
Look at the time-related Lorentz transformation:<br>
tau = gamma(t-vx/c<sup>2</sup>)<br>
When the travelling twin turns to come back, the sign in
front of "v" changes and so the proper time tau jumps to a
new time. - That is not very physical but it is what the
Lorentz formalism tells us.<br>
</blockquote>
It is my understanding that both observers conclude the others
clocks must slow down. The slow down is due to v squared over
c squared in Gamma<br>
</blockquote>
It can be understood in the way that this is a symmetrical
situation as long as there is only straight motion. But in the
moment when one twin turns to come back he changes the frame of
reference. And in that moment symmetry is no longer the case. As
I have shown above, the new frame of the returning twin has an
offset in time with respect to the earlier frame. But only this
one has the offset, the other one not! <br>
<br>
For an easier understanding: If one believes that there is an
absolute frame at rest, then only the twin not travelling can
stay in that frame. If the other one would initially be in the
frame at rest, he leaves it as soon as he turns.<br>
</blockquote>
Yres I've seen explanations that include the gravitational
acceleration and deceleration for one of the twins, but one can
set up a situation in which the completely symetric impulses are
felt by both observers and and the coast time is as long as one
wants <br>
i do not understand what you mean by an observer leaving his
reference frame.<br>
Each observer measures the world through his reference frame how
can he leave? Unless you are talking about a transcendental god
like point of view?<br>
</blockquote>
The twin paradox is an example of Special Relativity. Special
relativity is only about non-accelerated motion. The frame of each
observer is the frame in which he is at rest. For this case we can
apply the Lorentz transformation. As soon as one observer is
accelerated he is no longer at rest in the same frame. And then the
relativity principle does not apply any longer. So, there is no
argument that both twins should experience the same physics, e.g.
the same behaviour of time.<br>
<br>
Acceleration is the fact that an observer leaves his frame as
described above. But the different speed of time for the twins is
not caused by the acceleration. According to SRT acceleration does
not influence time. (There are some confusing statements of Einstein
saying something different).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> <br>
The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly
investigated with the result that gravity propagates with c.
<br>
</blockquote>
One would think so and I've admired Einstein since I learned
about the 4'th dimension in Mr. Andersons Science class in the
9th grade, but now I have had a chance to do more
investigation and much of what I was taught is not as sold as
it was taught. The argument Jefmenko put forward is quite
simple. the 43 deg precession per century was a well known
error in the residual calculation of the effects of planet and
Sun motion on Mercury <br>
using Newtron's instantaneous gravity forces, If it were
calculated ( but I understand it cannot) using Einsteins
equations the answer for the residual would be different,
therefore the fact that Einstein explains the 43seconds is an
inconsistency. Perhaps it has been thoroughly discussed but
this as well as many other contradictions and paradoxes have
been thoroughly ignored from what I know. <br>
</blockquote>
I did not follow this calculation for Mercury myself. But as far
as I know many have done it. And one point has also to be taken
into account. There are a lot of corrections to be done if the
orbit of Mercury is calculated. Einstein's correction was only a
small contribution, but it was the contribution which made the
result perfect. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
No. Einstein calculated the precession of Mercury itself and found
it to be 43sec/cent different from the Newtonian calculation which
calculated a value using the perturbations from the outer planets
<br>
but Einstein did not calculate the precession using the
perturbation from the outer planets i fact according to Jefimenko
Einsten should have calculated the precession using his theory to
calculate the effect of the outer planets. If he had done so the
error would no longer be 43 seconds. so the fact that Enstein
explaind the 43seconds without taking into account the outer
planets is a mistake and his exact 43seconds/ century calculation
is proof that his theory was specifically designed to give the
impression of accuracy when it is not.<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein has calculated the additional contribution to the
precession caused by GRT. So the final result which fits to the
measurement is the sum of the Newtonian and the Einsteinian
consideration. His correction is a correction (using GRT) applied to
the normal elliptical motion of the Mercury. This elliptical motion
contains already the classical precession according to Newton. The
perturbation from the other planets is taken as they result from
Newton. What do you find missing? Should Einstein have corrected the
perturbation from the other planets also by means of GRT? To my
knowledge this was not done and I guess that this would cause a
negligible correction, much smaller than the GRT correction of 43
arc-seconds.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:139c39ac-0cd6-fa95-efb6-76215b470c36@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f03e3f2a-976b-0325-5001-d980ce768111@a-giese.de"
type="cite"> In my view it should not be necessary to use curved
space-time. But there is one influence which was of course not
taken into account before Einstein. When Mercury is passing the
perihelion then it is faster than in the other positions. And
there it has to be taken into account that the mass of Mercury
increases. I expect that this could be sufficient to have the
right correction.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7f7f7af2-7e4e-687d-70b1-917943d415ad@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:c72843bb-65e2-6be7-8b64-cd214b6317c2@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:50043b6a-db1c-8bbf-6f07-05b47b5dc163@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote
cite="mid:f7b71dcf-0cc4-795c-1684-ac38479ab8c3@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I
expect an answer to at least one question: what is the
cause of the weak equivalence principle, i.e. the fact
that all objects are having the same gravitational
acceleration independent of their inertial mass.
Newton's theory of gravity does not answer this,
Einstein's does not answer it as well. Gravity has to
answer it!<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e
Mach's principle not answer this question?<br>
</blockquote>
What has Mach's principle to do with vector potential? For
my feeling Mach's principle is mostly incorrectly
interpreted. The name "Mach's principle" was created by
Einstein, but it is not a proper title. <br>
Mach's question and argument was how in the absence of an
aether acceleration can be defined (or equivalently what a
straight motion is). In his view an aether is necessary to
define acceleration. And, to give this aether (which was
nothing more then a frame of reference) a spatial reference
or orientation, he referred it to our environment of fixed
stars. That sounds reasonable to me but it does not explain
why or how this reference is realized in the universe.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Einstein and Mach had a falling out when Mach did not like
Einsteins formulation.<br>
See
<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"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Sciama
D. W. (1953) “On the Origin of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S.,
Vol.113,1953 p.34 URL:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf">http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1; tab-stops:list 27.0pt">I think someone showed
this derivation was compatible with Einsteins formulation
but I have not found the reference yet<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Would be interesting, but I cannot find / open this URL.<br>
</blockquote>
See two papers attached<br>
</blockquote>
Where do I find these two papers? - Well, now I found them.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<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>
<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">
<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">-<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<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"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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 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>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>