<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Chandra,<br>
<br>
I agree with you in so far that relativity, as developed and
propagated by Einstein, is smart mathematics to a great degree.
But relativity is fundamentally a physical phenomenon.<br>
<br>
Take as a very clear example the behavior of temporal processes.
Clocks run more slowly when they move. That tells us special
relativity. It is not difficult to prove that experimentally. If
you have two precise clocks and you move one of them away and then
back, the clock moved will show a retarded time. The similar
behaviour you can observe for all temporal processes.<br>
<br>
And if you have two clocks in a gravitational field and you move
one clock deeper into the gravitational field it will run move
slowly. That is general relativity. That can be proven so
precisely that you can determine the hight of a clock in the
gravitational field of the earth with the precision of centimeters
by just observing the clock indications. <br>
<br>
The problem with Einstein is that Einstein has only described
these phenomena mathematically but not explained them physically.
The approach of Hendrik Lorentz explains them physically (at
least the fundaments). But main stream unfortunately ignores this
way.<br>
<br>
I am not sure that I understand what you say about quantization of
EM waves. In my understanding EM waves are propagated by photons
which are particles. And particles are naturally quanta.<br>
<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 20.05.2017 um 21:19 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB32340A2A0F83E4D195FB878A93FA0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<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]-->
<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
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM<br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>; Wolfgang
Baer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a><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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</a></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com">E-mailwolf@NascentInc.com</a></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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20">http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Gravite-Inertie-Mass/Inertie/Sciama/D%20W%20Sciama%20</a>-</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
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.avast.com"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a></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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>