<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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Question. Regarding your paper on gravity. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If the attractive force between unlike charges is slightly larger than the repulsive force between like charges, how do we explain the refraction of light by gravitational fields?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Do you have a copy of this paper you can share?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:52 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Al et al.,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>"</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>I'm nervous about bringing gravity in. Really what it is, is still too mysterious. Even for AE, it is just a pregiven phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it. But, perhaps it's an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and - charge carriers.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>I'd refer you once again to my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics: A Cyberneticist's Perspective on Gravitation' (Kybernetes Vol 40 issue 9/10, Nov 2011, pp 1319-1330). In this I show in some detail how the phenomenon referred to as 'gravitation' can be fully explained in every detail by simply recognising that attractive forces between opposite charges and repelling forces between like charges are NOT precisely equal (for unit charges in each case). A tiny difference between these two effects (for which there is NO scientific reason why they should be identical) - attraction being infinitesimally greater than repulsion - gives rise to an overall attraction between 'ponderable masses' precisely in accordance with every recorded observation. This explanation could well also shed new light on those effects attributed to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' - another couple of what could well be regarded as 'fiddle factors' comparable to Einstein's 'cosmological constant'. Like Einstein's CC they could, rather, point to a feature of the cosmos that we have overlooked or wrongly assumed.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>If one looks at it from this very simple perspective, gravitation is far from being mysterious - it's simply a 2nd-order effect of 'electrostatic' attraction/repulsion (which is itself an artefact of electromagnetic wave interference between non-linear configurations of such waves, i.e. particles of matter) - gravitation, as another separate 'force' in its own right, doesn't actually exist.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:#E4E4E4'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" title="af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>To:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Cc:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Sent:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Sunday, June 25, 2017 6:41 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Subject:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>While I am not completely confident that I fully understand the objections, perhaps they have to do with the following point. Ontological chages occure at (or to) the source of E&M interaction. Perspective changes happen to (or at) the sink of E&M interaction---not just sentient, passive observers. The actual, real efffect from the source on a sink is physcially altered by the relative (deleayed) position and motion of the source. For one thing, it is Gaussian diminished (i.e., reduced by 1/r**2). In this sense, time-dilation, space-contraction are real effects (but only as far as the sink is concerned!). Sentient observers, such as those emphasized by Wolf, are no more that a collection of E&M sinks. So, the "obesrver" is taken into account in this formulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>I'm nervious about bringing gravity in. Really what it is, is still too mysterious. Even for AE, it is just a pregiven phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it. But, perhaps it"s an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and - charge carriers. Who knows??? For what it's worth! ---Al<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;WORD-WRAP: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space' name=quote><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>