<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf,</p>
<p>again comments in the text.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and
mass together</p>
</blockquote>
That means a force between charge and mass? To my understanding mass
and charge are completely different categories as a wrote last time.
Charge is a permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
dynamical process which also changes when the object changes its
motion state (which at the end is : relativity).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p>In order to build a framework of a physical theory that
properly includes the observer as a measurement model building
and acting component I use a very simplified concept built on
the classic metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time
along with the forces between them are fundamental. Here are
some of the differences between my cognitive action theory CAT
and classic physics <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
Just a question at this point: to which set of "metaphysical ideas"
do you refer? If we refer to main stream physics, at least mass is a
different category. And also time and space are most probably
different categories from the others, at least for some of the
physical community.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:2;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1402830538;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2021824260 433099698 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:.75in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> </o:smarttagtype></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"> Summary
of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The
examples provided in this section are intended to show how
action theory is applied to well known and observable situations
that can be compared with analysis using classical physics
concepts. What CAT has added is summarized as follows:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Change
involving transitions between states is where physics is
happening.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Change,
visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
material media. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->The
degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
separating mass and charge.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Internal
material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the
interior of matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum
theory (see chapter 6) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:45.0pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Mach’s
principle and the connection between the inertial field is
introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as
the centrifugal force and <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“m∙a”
in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Newton</st1:city></st1:place>’s
formulation. (See Appendix on Mach’s Principle)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1
lfo1; tab-stops:list .75in"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times
New Roman""> </span></span><!--[endif]-->Time
is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to
change a state separated by a constant state distance.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Action theory is being developed as the
physical underpinnings of an event oriented world view and a
description of reality which includes both the subjective and
objective aspect of reality described by CAT. <br>
</span></blockquote>
The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or
force? In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes are
very simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is a tendency, or a
good strategy of our brains to build categories. For instance, there
are billions of trees on our earth. No brain of a human being is
able to register and to remember all these trees. So, our brain
build the category "tree". That is helpful. But the cells in the
trees have no logical connection to the category-building, they
follow fundamental rules. <br>
<br>
In an analogue way, there is a force between charges (else not!). If
objects move which have charges the forces will cause that the
motion of the objects is influenced, the path changes accordingly.
That is fundamental. A human brain can now build the category of an
"action" to describe, or better: to categories this process. This
brain-related process is in my view a less fundamental view to the
world, even though a helpful one.<br>
<br>
But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It is true
that there would be no inertia if there would not be charges in the
world. But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges (and
a dynamical consequence). So one could say: a consequence on a
higher level. <br>
<br>
And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of humans to
categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural way to treat the
effect of charges.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><b><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Twin Paradox:</span></o:smarttagtype></b></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">You mentioned the twin paradox is
explained by the Lorenz transformation since
t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation <br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">How do you avoid the paradox in the
following experiment</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Two twins are accelerated with a
small short pulse in opposite directions.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">At some very long time they are
both reversed with a double pulse <br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">when they meet they are stopped by
a short pulse.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">The experiment is completely
symmetric. both twins experience the same acceleration pulse
so gravity clock effects are equal and can be eliminated
from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily long
period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to
each other. Since the time dilation formula only contains</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">velocity squared the direction of
relative travel does not make a difference. If the theory is
correct there is a paradox and gravity cannot explain it.</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
</blockquote>
First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity.
Why do you connect it to gravity?<br>
<br>
And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I
cannot see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"><b>do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting replies from
people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?</b><br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
</blockquote>
To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the
list; then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Best,</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">wolf<br>
</span></o:smarttagtype></p>
</blockquote>
Best<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:0936dd20-5649-aa04-0491-c83272252644@nascentinc.com"
type="cite">
<p><o:smarttagtype
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA"> </span></o:smarttagtype></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 5/11/2017 2:41 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:dcdf431e-a590-574a-ec02-0e6a9bb83659@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1"> </a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>