<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi Andrew W.:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory of physics. It is smart mathematics only.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though, quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather than on quantum mechanically bound electrons!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">==================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM<br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Wolfgang Baer <wolf@nascentinc.com><br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed actually<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">========================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">From: "Albrecht Giese" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Cc: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">again comments in the text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding charge and mass
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> together<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> In order to build a framework of a physical theory that properly
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> includes the observer as a measurement model building and acting
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> component I use a very simplified concept built on the classic
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along with the forces
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the differences between
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic Physical Concepts*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The examples provided in this section are intended to show how action
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> theory is applied to well known and observable situations that can be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> compared with analysis using classical physics concepts. What CAT has
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> added is summarized as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change involving transitions between states is where physics is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> happening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns, propagates through
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> material media.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been doubled by
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> separating mass and charge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Internal material forces between mass and charge are introduced as
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of the interior of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum theory (see
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> chapter 6)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the inertial field is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces such as the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation. (See Appendix on
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Mach’s Principle)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the system adopted as a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> clock, and time intervals are measured as action required to change a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> state separated by a constant state distance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Action theory is being developed as the physical underpinnings of an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> event oriented world view and a description of reality which includes
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> both the subjective and objective aspect of reality described by CAT.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The question here is again: what is more fundamental, action or force?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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".
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no logical connection to the category-building, they follow fundamental rules.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *Twin Paradox:*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the Lorenz
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which describes time dilation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> How do you avoid the paradox in the following experiment<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in opposite directions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> At some very long time they are both reversed with a double pulse<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins experience the same
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal and can be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the arbitrarily
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> long period where they are traveling with a velocity relative to each
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> velocity squared the direction of relative travel does not make a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> difference. If the theory is correct there is a paradox and gravity
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> cannot explain it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Why
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">do you connect it to gravity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And second: the whole process as you describe it is completely
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with time and with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a paradox? I cannot
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can be.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I keep only getting
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> replies from people who send them directly and my E-mails do not show
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To test it, you may sent this mail again without my address in the list;
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> On 5/11/2017 2:41 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> my original mail failed in some way. Now the answer to yours.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Am 07.05.2017 um 08:52 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> See comments below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> I've also just made progress on a chapter I'm writing for my book
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> "Cognitive Action Theory" in which I do not assume the charge and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> mass of particles are collocated, but instead treat charge and mass
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> as two different degrees of freedom connected by a force that is not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> infinite. I then treat inertia as a field which specifies the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> expected location of a particle mass by the rest of the Universe. In
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> other words a particle moving at velocity v and position x should be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> expected to be at x+v*dt a time dt later by the rest of the masses
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> in the Universe. However if an external force is applied the mass
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> will not be at x+vdt but at x+v*dt + dx. The deviation from the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> universe's expected position generates,for small deviations, an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> attractive force Fi = -Kc*dx which exactly balances the applied
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> force. This implements Mach's principle be replacing Newtons second
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Law with dAlambert's formula<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> 0= F - m*a and by replacing m*a with Kc*dx<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> I should have the chapter ready cleaned up enough for comments in a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> few weeks and with your permission will send it to you<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> To your introduction above:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> It is surely true that charge and mass are not collocated. But they
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> are - also by MainStream understanding - different categories of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> entities. Charge is a static object. It is a permanent property of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> something. In contrast, mass is a dynamical process. This is true for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> MainStream (i.e. the Higgs model) as well as for my model. The force
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> related to a charge depends on the amount of the charge and also from
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the distance between the involved charges. The force related to a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> mass is dependent on the mass (of course) and on the acceleration.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Where the essential question is, to which object or to which motion
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> state the acceleration is related. The latter is the question which
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Mach wanted to discuss, and his idea (that it is the motion state of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the fixed stars) was called Mach's principle (by Einstein). I think,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> it is a too big word related to the object; and I think that this is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> not only my opinion but it was also the opinion of Mach himself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Question to your considerations above: what do you mean by "Kc" or by
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> "K" if c is the speed of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> <a href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> On 5/6/2017 11:42 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> again some comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Am 05.05.2017 um 05:56 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> <a href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> On 5/3/2017 1:36 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Hi Wolf,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> some comments and answers in the text below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Am 01.05.2017 um 03:47 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Research Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> On 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> _Grahame,_<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> you say: " ... the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> consequences of those distributed entities ALREADY being
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> present to some degree at every point in the cosmos ... "<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> But look at the following cases: 1.) There may be two twin
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> stars which orbit each other. Their distance is rapidly
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> changing during an orbit. So the gravitational influences to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> their environment will change. And for this change I see the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> question justified which the propagation speed of this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> influence is. I think that your statement above does not cover
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> this case, true? 2.) An even less regular case: I know a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> colleague (professor) who has built and performs an experiment
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> to determine again the gravitational constant. In doing this he
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> has two massive objects which he moves towards each other or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> apart from each other and measures the force between them. This
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> process depends on his momentary decisions, so it is completely
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> irregular compared to other physical processes. So, also in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> this case, nothing is constant or even predetermined.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> everything is already determined and therefore in one state
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> determined by the initial conditions, actually any single
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> description in a time instance. Then we are talking about events
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> in dynamic states which interact with other events also in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> dynamic states and the interactions change both states.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> The original topic here was the question whether gravity
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> propagates at infinite speed. I have understood Grahame in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> way that in his view everything in the universe is already
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> determined (as you write it). And as a counter argument I have
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> given examples of gravitational processes which are not already
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> determined but permanently changing. Particularly the experiment
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> which I described depends on the ideas and intention of the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> experimenter. And his mind is by general understanding not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> determined for all times.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> In classic physics the universe is determined from beginning to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> end given the initial conditions. This determinism includes your
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> brain which determines the decisions of your mind. Quantum
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> mechanics provides a way out by evoking the uncertainty principle
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> which I think is not fundamental.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Instead I am building an event oriented physics in which Isolated
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> systems are fully determined until they interact with each other.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> The interactions change the state from one completely determined
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> clock like system to another. So like atoms these systems stay in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> a completely determined state and are undetectable until
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> interactions. Since independent systems are not determined by the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> same universal clock measurements of their state give random results.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Even without the uncertainty "principle" it would be interesting
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> for us to determine the further development of our universe. And
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> that is logically open for us except that we are religious and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> assume that some "creator" has decided the final development during
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> creation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> But are we not the creator of our universe. Do we not live in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> model we create?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Our present understanding of natural science is that there is an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> universe independent of any human individual and of his/her fantasies
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> and intentions. Maybe that this understanding is not correct. But any
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> alternative assumption about the world would discourage us to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> investigate this world (at least in my opinion). And in the case that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> also our human decisions are predetermined and so are fixed then
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> these predetermined decisions are not correlated to the ongoing of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the universe. Except - as I said - that there is a creator which has
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> correlated all this intentionally to cause a specific goal for the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> world. - But that is definitely religion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Regarding the "uncertainty principle" I have a very bad feeling as
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> in my understanding this is not a true uncertainty but a limited
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> knowledge of the state of particles. Heisenberg clearly has not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> studied high frequency electronics; those engineer know this effect
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> from every-day work for the measurement of pulses. Some call it the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Nyquist effect. It is exactly the same like Heisenberg's but less
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> exciting. Did you look at the paper of Chandra which he attached
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> some days ago about uncertainty? I did not work through it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> completely but it seems to have some good points.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> limited knowledge yes I agree, perhaps a limit on the accuracy of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> our measurement recording capability, but reality probably has sub
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> quantum structure<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> No I just realized the Emails from the group is getting trashed.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Will check out the paper<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Where do you see isolated systems in our world which occasionally
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> interact? And why would such interaction counteract determinism? -
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> By the way I do not believe that we need QM to believe in a world
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> where we can see some freedom of development. As I wrote earlier,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> QM has not helped physics. It has caused a lot of confusion and it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> has discouraged the physicist in their intend to understand our world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> I agree. But do you think there may be a political structure behind
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> its popularity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> There is an interesting book of Paul Forman:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> "Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Environment"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> In Forman's opinion the political situation in Germany in the 1020s
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> has promoted Quantum Mechanics - not by the intention of someone but
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> by the spirit of that time: World War I was lost for Germany and most
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> people did not understand it. And there was the economical crisis
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> which seemed to be out of control. So, a physical theory which says
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that the development of the physical world is generally not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> predictable did fit into the general expectation. Forman says that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> this was a good condition for the acceptance of QM.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Author(<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> _Wolf,_<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> there was an interesting development in our understanding of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> the physics of gravity. About a hundred years ago it was the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> general opinion that gravity is the simplest and most
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> fundamental force in physics. This may also have been the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> reason that gravity is a fundamental parameter in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> definition of the Planck units. At present, however, the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> representatives of the German Einstein Institute say that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> gravity is the least understood and perhaps most complicated
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have learned
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> more specifically that inertia is not just an intrinsic property
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> a la N's 1st Law, but perhaps the result of a vector potential
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> or a side effect of other forces like your theory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> But gravity has nothing to do with inertia. Newton may have
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> believed this but present physics has a different position. And
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Einstein's gravity depends on energy, not on inertia.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Does not Mach's principle suggest inertia is a gravitational effect ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Mach's questions which resulted in the so called "Mach's principle"
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> were about inertia and rotation. Not about gravity. Now, as he
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> related inertia and rotation to the background of fixed stars, one
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> could ask the question how a logical connection between this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> background and our close environment could work. And that could
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> make us conclude that gravity is involved. This is possible but not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> for sure and I did not find it in any statement of Ernst Mach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Again the main reason is that mass appear in the equivalence
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> principle m*a =m*g<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> There are two main divisions of long range forces forces, those
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> which have charge as source and those which have mass.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Mach has asked the question whether inertia and rotation can be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> defined if there is no kind of an aether. If aether is taken as the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> existence of a fixed reference system as Hendrik Lorentz has assumed
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> it, then one can ask the question which physical fact or situation
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> defines the motion state of this aether. He thought that it may be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> defined by the position of our fixed star background. There is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> nothing more contained in the so called Mach's principle.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Regarding forces there are four, besides gravity there are the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> strong, the weak, and the electric force. The strong and the weak
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> force are understood as short range forces. But in my view they are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> long range forces like the electrical one, but they are realized in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the particles as multi-pole forces and that explains the short range.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> And this assumption can yield good results in the understanding of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> particles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> And in my view gravity is not a force at all but a refraction process
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> (which means a side effect of other forces). Best visible at the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> deflection of particles at the sun which is best explained as a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> refraction process (this is my personal idea but also assumed and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> calculated by well known cosmologists like Roman Sexl. And in so far
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> also presented in text books.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> The weak equivalence is completely non-understood by Main Stream
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> physics. The refraction model can explain it as the refraction
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> overrules the inertia. This works and it is the only workable
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> explanation these days.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> The idea to connect gravity in some way to the electric force
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> comes up again and again. The reason is most probably that both
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> follow the dependence of range of 1/r^2 . (But this dependence
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> can be explained geometrically if we assume that forces are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> generally mediated by exchange particles.) The idea of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> Jefimenko that there is a cogravitation as a kind of different
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> charge sign to make it compatible with electricity is a new and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> severe assumption. I find it better not to permanently
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> introduce new - an unobserved - phenomena than to try to live
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> with the existing ones (= Occam's razor).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product force
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> to Newton he also adds a gravitational force to the field since
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> it contains energy and ends up with 5 forces. However Sciamma's
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> vector potential explaining inertia is Jefimenko's main point.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Again: I do not see any connection of gravity with inertia.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> I now your theory attempts to explain inertia but does not address
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> gravity and this biases you against acknowledging a connection but
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> there is no such connection is the fact that m*a =m*g , with the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> same "m" not extremely coincident, beyond belief I would say?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Main Stream physics say that there is an inertial mass and a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> gravitational mass in the world. The cause of this concept is the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> fact that any object has the same gravitational acceleration
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> independent of its mass. But we should be aware that this position
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> is also an interpretation. Another interpretation could be that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> gravity has nothing to do with mass. In that view, it may not care
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> about mass. Gravity in this view is a refraction process which is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> quite easily visible in the case of deflection of particles at the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> sun. - But this is now my position.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> What causes the refraction field?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> The speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field. The degree of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> reduction depends on the distance from the centre of gravity and on
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the size (mass?) of the source. This applied to the internal
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> oscillation of c in a particle yields the Newtonian gravity in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> non-relativistic case and the Einsteinian gravity (i.e. GRT) in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> relativistic case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> For Main Stream this "coincidence"as you call it is a complete
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> mystery. No one has an idea why this is as it is. Also Mach has to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> my knowledge not given any statements about it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Sciama's derivation of inertia as the gravitational version of the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> magnetic field in EM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> This is not a workable explanation in my view by the following
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> reason. The magnetic field is only existing for an observer (or a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> charge) in certain motion states. If there is a magnetic field
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> noticed by an observer (or by a charge) then the observer (or charge)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> can go into a motion state in which the magnetic field disappears. In
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> case of inertia this is not possible. If there is inertia, an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> observer may change to any motion state and the inertial mass will
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> never disappear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical phenomenon,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> changing the understanding of space and time. On the other hand
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> Theodor Kaluza has irritated Einstein with his hint that any
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> force in physics can be explained by a specific geometry of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> space and time. (Einstein has accepted that but was not happy
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> with it.) So, why not go back to physics and to forces in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> gravity rather than using space-time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and models
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> are written drawn or imagined on a background space that is both
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> fixed and meaningless as anything but a structural support. I
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> Found it impossible to to imagine space time warping so from a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> heuristic necessity it is simply easier to imagine particles and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> forces between them. However there is clearly a tendency in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> physics to be proud of theories that no one understands.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> For those who believe that they understand theories like GRT or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> QM it is surely essential to feel that they are superior to most
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> of the mankind regarding understanding. However, I do not believe
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> that this was Einstein's motivation to develop a space-time
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> related theory. He believed that it was the true nature. In my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> view he did not see that his space-time is nothing than a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> mathematical trick.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> The shortest distance, the minimum action principle, canonical
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> transformations, and Einsteins formulation are alternative coding
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> schemes for the same phenomena - since I cannot visualize curved
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> 3d space and when I see two dimensional rubber surfaces curved
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> inward to a weight in the middle that causes the rubber sheet to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> bend and shortest distances to be curved, I and others ask, what
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> causes the central mass to push down? somewhere it is easier to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> imagine forces in a Cartesian flat space Why? because our minds
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> are built with this capacity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> There are specific situations where it is possible to describe a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> situation by a curved space or space-time. And in specific
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> situations there is a level of presentation which looks simple and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> elegant. And that has surely encouraged Einstein to understand this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> as a good way to do physics. But in the general case it makes
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> things unnecessarily complicated. That is particularly true for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> GRT. I have as a demonstration shown (in talks) two ways to deduce
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> the Schwarzschild solution. The way of Einstein (which I have
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> copied from textbooks) is a sequence of more than 80 equations,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> very complicated as they need Riemannian geometry (i.e. 4-dim
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> curved space geometry); and alternatively the concept of gravity as
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> a refraction process. The exactly same result using a sequence of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> ca. 20 equations and Euclidean geometry. Can be taught at school.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> But the leading persons in GRT tell me that they find the way of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Einstein "more elegant". So, just a matter of taste. No idea how to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> argue in this case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> I agree, you have a short and elegant process. Why is it not main
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> stream? my only explanation besides politics is that your basic
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> premise involves two particles, perhaps charges, that rotate at the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> speed of light and produce a potential that has a minimum at the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> orbital radius and that initial postulate seems complicated and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> contrived and does not explain anything beyond what has already been
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> explained. So you are offering a simpler derivation in exchange for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> a complicated Ansatz<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> To understand my model one has to understand (and also visualize) the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> process of inertia. If this is achieved all the rest is very simple.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> If this is not done, all the rest is open and my statements look
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> arbitrary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Can my model of inertia be understood? I am presenting it since 16
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> years now and my experiences are very different. If I explain it,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> some of the people say that they are unable to understand this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> mechanism, even professors of theoretical physics have said it.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Others (physicists and engineers) react with total enthusiasm and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> wonder why no one has found this mechanism earlier. It is in fact a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> funny situation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> There are two typical reactions are in favour of this mechanism. My
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> web site about "origin of mass" is since 15 years permanently the no.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 1 in the search engines (only sometimes it was overtaken by Noble
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> price laureate Frank Wilczek). And when I present the model at the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> conferences of the German Physical Society, my auditory is always
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> about 10 times the auditory of comparable talks. So, many seem to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> understand it, and just at the last conference some told me
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> explicitly that they are really enthusiastic about the model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I am surprised about the non-understanding because I do not only
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> describe the model qualitatively but present a quantitative
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> calculation. What else can one do?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> But those who do not understand the model or do not take their time
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to follow it, those have arguments that an electron cannot have
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> sub-constituents. Because in that case there is a clear conflict with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the experiments. It is essential for the conflict-free functionality
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that the constituents do not have any mass at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> If this model is, however, understood and accepted, then the rest is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> very simple and straight ahead. Particularly if it is compared with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the complicated (and anyway not working) Higgs model. In detail:
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> there must be two constituents to fulfil conservation of momentum.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> There must be this motion with c to explain relativistic dilation.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> There must be a circular motion to make a spin and a magnetic moment
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity: To my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> knowledge this was carefully investigated in past decades with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> the result that also gravity is limited to c. I do not go back
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> to the details. Should there be new arguments which are not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> covered by the past discussions then this would be a good
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> reason to investigate this case again. But are there new
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> arguments?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is used
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> by astronomers and orbital space engineers with great success
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> yet requires the speed of light to be infinite or at least
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> several orders of magnitude larger than "c" has never to my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> knowledge been explained. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Why this? I do not see the logical necessity for this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> If we calculate the force of gravity on the earth from a retarded
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> potential that emanates at the speed of light a small tangential
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> force would exist that would make the earth slowly spiral outward,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> this would have been noticed over the several thousand years
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> observations have been made. No Newtons model requires gravity to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> come from where objects are seen at infinite speed and it seems to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> How do you calculate this? Which causes the tangential force? Would
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> it be also this way if the binding force would not be gravity but
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> an electrostatic field? For the electric field the theory tells us
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> that there is no tangential force. Why just for gravity? (Didn't we
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> discuss this earlier?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Yes Newtons action at a distance calculates the observed position of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> planets sun moon etc with great accuracy using the assumption that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> the gravity force comes from the location of the light not from a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> retarded position . Yes we talked about this and the van Flanders
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> paper calculates the the effect. A small tangential force that would
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> slowly make the earth and all planets spiral outwards at a rate not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> actually observed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> We have discussed this earlier. One can build a planetary model where
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the attraction is not caused by gravity but by electric charges. And
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> in that case one could also argue that there is a tangential force,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> as the potential of the partner is seen as a retarded one. But for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> this electric case I have referred you to calculations in text books
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> showing that this does not happen. The field vector of the attracting
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> (or repelling) field does not point to the position where the charge
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> was when the field was emitted, but it points to the actual position
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> of the charge. (Lienard-Wiechert Potential). As gravitational and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> electric fields propagate in the same way there is no reason not to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> accept the same mechanism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Maybe another argument: If there would be an accelerated or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> decelerated rotation this would violate the conservation of energy. -
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Perhaps I can find an argument which can be easier visualized. I am
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> looking for it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> It like the twin paradox and the inconsistency of the perihelion
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> of Mercury precession is brought up and then ignored and brought
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> up again by the next generation and then ignored.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> The twin paradox is in fact very simple. With respect to SRT it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> is nothing else than a change of the reference system. Look at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> the time-related Lorentz transformation:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> tau = gamma(t-vx/c^2 )<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> When the travelling twin turns to come back, the sign in front of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> "v" changes and so the proper time tau jumps to a new time. -
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> That is not very physical but it is what the Lorentz formalism
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> tells us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> It is my understanding that both observers conclude the others
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> clocks must slow down. The slow down is due to v squared over c
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> squared in Gamma<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> It can be understood in the way that this is a symmetrical
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> situation as long as there is only straight motion. But in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> moment when one twin turns to come back he changes the frame of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> reference. And in that moment symmetry is no longer the case. As I
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> have shown above, the new frame of the returning twin has an offset
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> in time with respect to the earlier frame. But only this one has
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> the offset, the other one not!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> For an easier understanding: If one believes that there is an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> absolute frame at rest, then only the twin not travelling can stay
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> in that frame. If the other one would initially be in the frame at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> rest, he leaves it as soon as he turns.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Yres I've seen explanations that include the gravitational
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> acceleration and deceleration for one of the twins, but one can set
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> up a situation in which the completely symetric impulses are felt by
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> both observers and and the coast time is as long as one wants<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> i do not understand what you mean by an observer leaving his
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> reference frame.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Each observer measures the world through his reference frame how can
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> he leave? Unless you are talking about a transcendental god like
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> point of view?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> The twin paradox is an example of Special Relativity. Special
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> relativity is only about non-accelerated motion. The frame of each
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> observer is the frame in which he is at rest. For this case we can
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> apply the Lorentz transformation. As soon as one observer is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> accelerated he is no longer at rest in the same frame. And then the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> relativity principle does not apply any longer. So, there is no
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> argument that both twins should experience the same physics, e.g. the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> same behaviour of time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Acceleration is the fact that an observer leaves his frame as
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> described above. But the different speed of time for the twins is not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> caused by the acceleration. According to SRT acceleration does not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> influence time. (There are some confusing statements of Einstein
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> saying something different).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> The case of the Mercury is not my knowledge thoroughly
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> investigated with the result that gravity propagates with c.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> One would think so and I've admired Einstein since I learned
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> about the 4'th dimension in Mr. Andersons Science class in the 9th
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> grade, but now I have had a chance to do more investigation and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> much of what I was taught is not as sold as it was taught. The
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> argument Jefmenko put forward is quite simple. the 43 deg
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> precession per century was a well known error in the residual
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> calculation of the effects of planet and Sun motion on Mercury<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> using Newtron's instantaneous gravity forces, If it were
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> calculated ( but I understand it cannot) using Einsteins equations
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> the answer for the residual would be different, therefore the fact
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> that Einstein explains the 43seconds is an inconsistency. Perhaps
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> it has been thoroughly discussed but this as well as many other
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> contradictions and paradoxes have been thoroughly ignored from
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> what I know.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> I did not follow this calculation for Mercury myself. But as far as
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> I know many have done it. And one point has also to be taken into
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> account. There are a lot of corrections to be done if the orbit of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Mercury is calculated. Einstein's correction was only a small
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> contribution, but it was the contribution which made the result
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> perfect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> No. Einstein calculated the precession of Mercury itself and found
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> it to be 43sec/cent different from the Newtonian calculation which
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> calculated a value using the perturbations from the outer planets<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> but Einstein did not calculate the precession using the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> perturbation from the outer planets i fact according to Jefimenko
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Einsten should have calculated the precession using his theory to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> calculate the effect of the outer planets. If he had done so the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> error would no longer be 43 seconds. so the fact that Enstein
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> explaind the 43seconds without taking into account the outer planets
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> is a mistake and his exact 43seconds/ century calculation is proof
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> that his theory was specifically designed to give the impression of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> accuracy when it is not.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Einstein has calculated the additional contribution to the precession
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> caused by GRT. So the final result which fits to the measurement is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the sum of the Newtonian and the Einsteinian consideration. His
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> correction is a correction (using GRT) applied to the normal
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> elliptical motion of the Mercury. This elliptical motion contains
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> already the classical precession according to Newton. The
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> perturbation from the other planets is taken as they result from
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Newton. What do you find missing? Should Einstein have corrected the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> perturbation from the other planets also by means of GRT? To my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> knowledge this was not done and I guess that this would cause a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> negligible correction, much smaller than the GRT correction of 43
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> arc-seconds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> In my view it should not be necessary to use curved space-time. But
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> there is one influence which was of course not taken into account
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> before Einstein. When Mercury is passing the perihelion then it is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> faster than in the other positions. And there it has to be taken
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> into account that the mass of Mercury increases. I expect that this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> could be sufficient to have the right correction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I expect an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> answer to at least one question: what is the cause of the weak
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> equivalence principle, i.e. the fact that all objects are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> having the same gravitational acceleration independent of their
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> inertial mass. Newton's theory of gravity does not answer this,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>> Einstein's does not answer it as well. Gravity has to answer it!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>>> principle not answer this question?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> What has Mach's principle to do with vector potential? For my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> feeling Mach's principle is mostly incorrectly interpreted. The
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> name "Mach's principle" was created by Einstein, but it is not a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> proper title.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> Mach's question and argument was how in the absence of an aether
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> acceleration can be defined (or equivalently what a straight
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> motion is). In his view an aether is necessary to define
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> acceleration. And, to give this aether (which was nothing more
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> then a frame of reference) a spatial reference or orientation, he
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> referred it to our environment of fixed stars. That sounds
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> reasonable to me but it does not explain why or how this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>> reference is realized in the universe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Einstein and Mach had a falling out when Mach did not like
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Einsteins formulation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> See<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> 1.Sciama D. W. (1953) “On the Origin of Inertia”, M.N.R.A.S.,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Vol.113,1953 p.34 <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> <a href="URL:http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">URL:http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20-</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">%20On%20the%20origin%20of%20inertia.pdf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> I think someone showed this derivation was compatible with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>> Einsteins formulation but I have not found the reference yet<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>>> Would be interesting, but I cannot find / open this URL.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> See two papers attached<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Where do I find these two papers? - Well, now I found them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Wolf et al,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> You will note that my proposal re gravity in my recently-circulated
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> paper, as the 'extended being' of spatially distributed entities
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> that we (with our limited senses) perceive as localised 'particles',
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> implicitly proposes that the 'propagation speed of gravity' is in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> fact infinite - since there is in actuality NO propagation involved,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the consequences of those
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> distributed entities ALREADY being present to some degree at every
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> point in the cosmos. I.e. 'everything is everywhere', to put it in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> simple terms; as a 'physical massive object' moves (again, a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> simplistic term), the WHOLE of its extended being moves with it and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> is immediately in a position to manifest 'gravitational' effects of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> that object consistent with its changed position, no matter how far
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> spatially removed (more simplistic concepts!) from what we perceive
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> as the 'massive object' itself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> This points to a far deeper truth - that 'locality' and 'time' are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> both over-simplifications of deeper concepts, foisted on us by an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> evolutionary process that's more interested that we (a) breed, (b)
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> find lunch and (c) don't become lunch - than it is in us fathoming
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> the underlying principles of cosmic structure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> Grahame<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>> -<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Virenfrei. <a href="http://www.avast.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">---<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a>"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>