Philip, can you send me a copy of what you have too to allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks, Allen Daves philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I have the B&B paper in adobe file (1mb) which I can send to those wanting it.. a bit too hard for meee.. lots of squigly maths stuff.. Philip. Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework by J. B. Barbour and B. Bertotti [Il Nuovo Cimento, 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977] Preliminary overview of this paper by John K. Domen This paper is an initial and still incomplete, fundamental and quantitative exposition of the physics proposed by Ernst Mach (~1883) that the influence of the entire material universe must be considered when treating the motions of systems we know, like the planetary system. Current physics in general, and relativity in particular, neglect the influence of the universe on local phenomena. The laws of motion of local systems, is termed LOCAL PHYSICS, whereas the more embracive laws which affect the universe, is termed PROTO PHYSICS. Local physics becomes a subset of proto physics. The paper starts with a dual approach: 1) time is not a real dimensional parameter, but is merely a measure of the succession of events ? the universe passing through a sequence of relative configurations of many particles; 2) Physics deals with the relations between things, and a specific geometry does not dictate a basis for physics. In LOCAL physics, the location, r, of a ?particle? in Newtonian physics is found from velocity (v), time (t) and perhaps a constant (a): r ~ r+vt+a; and time (t) increases by a constant: t~t+c. In PROTO physics, the authors also start with bodies (not necessarily point like), but the laws of mechanics and electromagnetism that describe their motion should only contain the relative distances between these bodies. Location, r, of a body is described as: r ~ A(T) *r + g(T), where T ~ f(T). T is an arbitrary increasing parameter (not time t), A is a matrix allowing an arrangement of T, and g and f are some expressions (functions) of T. First a general equation (the Lagrangian) describing the motion of particles is written. Then an energy equation (the Hamiltonian) for various energies [kinetic, potential, rotational] is written which depends only on position and momentum, and not velocity explicitly, as velocity expressly involves time. Some of the results of their calculations that have emerged from this proto physics approach are: For a stationary hollow material shell, the same Newtonian gravitation type force is calculated outside and on the shell, and zero inside the shell. If just two bodies are considered, a slow motion approximation of the proto physics formulas yields Kepler?s equations for planetary motion along with the terms for the advance of the perihelion and slow variation of the planetary period. A generalized velocity for the universe is calculated that is close to the experimental observed speed of light. The inference is that the universe dictates the properties of light. Velocity of light in local physics is not an intrinsic feature of relativistic ?space-time,? but is rather a reflection in local physics of the averaged motion of the Universe at large. Also the gravitational constant is of protophysical origin, and the calculation of the nominal density and radius of the universe is in general agreement with commonly accepted values. Overall motion of the universe is imprinted on local physics through an unusual time-dependent gravitational constant: G = 4*R*(DR**2)/M where R is the universe radius, DR is its velocity, and M is its mass. If the universe is considered as a rotating ?hollow? sphere (or disc, or ring), the resulting forces generated by this sphere on a test body near the center of the sphere are real 1) Coriolis and 2) centrifugal forces. These ?frame dragging? forces can move an undriven Foucault pendulum, stabilize geosynchronous satellites, etc. These forces are not fictitious, but real, and would be generated by a rotating universe. Thirring-Lense around 1917 solved formulas from general relativity for a rotating spherical shell and obtained similar expressions for centrifugal and Coriolis forces. But the relativistic formulas gave wrong coefficients and produced a spurious axial force. The same rotating hollow sphere is again considered, but with a test particle at a great distance from the sphere. The gravitational attraction by the sphere is not the same as if the mass of the sphere were concentrated at its center. An increase and orientation dependence of the gravitational constant is predicted, such that gravity force could be caused by internal motion itself of the sphere material. Gravity and inertia (matter) are related as magnetism and electricity. And since material is made of charged particles (which are not points, but extended), gravity arises from the distribution of the electric and magnetic fields generated by the atomic particles, which are not points, but are moving and extended. Nearby matter increases the inertia of a body. The calculations imply that each material object has a mass distribution that is not the same in all directions (is anisotropic). A further item from Mach?s principle is that the mass of a body is determined by the total distribution of matter in the universe. This should also be true if the body is a lithium nucleus. To test whether astronomical matter is uniformly distributed, the Hughes(-Drever) experiment (1957) assumed the opposite, and that if a lithium nucleus is accelerated in different directions in regard to astronomical matter, the mass of the lithium nucleus should change. A lithium salt-water solution was surrounded by a fixed magnet, and driven by microwaves. If there is more mass in the universe in one direction than another, then as the orientation of the earth to the universe varies over 12 hours, there should be a change in the lithium nuclear mass by Mach?s principle; and this should exhibit itself in a shift of the nuclear resonant frequencies emitted over this 12-hour period. No frequency shift was observed to a high precision, indicating astronomical mass is uniformly distributed. The Hughes calculations were based primarily on our galaxy, rather than the universe. Whether this experiment is detrimental to one conclusion in Barbour?s paper [that the mass distribution in a body is not uniform] may be questionable, on the basis of whether the experiment was extensive enough, and on assertions that astronomical matter is not uniformly distributed. A curious result is that the bulk of the matter in the universe may be receding or approaching us with a velocity about half the speed of light. Relativistic theories calculate planetary motion with accuracy, but the theories use ?constants? c (speed of light) and G (gravity constant), introduced as absolutes, whereas they should be derived from PROTO physics, as this paper shows. Final comments Other developments besides this paper have given a replacement for relativity, without the need for any mysterious concepts contrary to reason or common sense. The mathematical constructs and derived concepts of ?curved space,? placing time and location on the same level, Minkowski space, contraction in direction of motion, light speed independent of the motion of the observer, etc. are not necessary. Attaching importance to a coordinate system (?inertial? frame moving at a constant velocity) and a misconception with Maxwell?s electrodynamics helped turn physics on a side path. These concepts were initially promoted as an alternate explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, and similar ones. A new basis is that a material object (basically electrons, protons, elementary particles, etc.) are not point objects, but distributed, rotating rings of electric charge that produce electric and magnetic energy (fields), which interact with all other fields, generated by all other ?particles.? The already established laws of electrodynamics and physics are applied. Feedback on the charge itself produces a field that opposes the charge?s motion. It is this electrical nature of a charge which reacts against itself (making the particle anisotropic) and which must also include the fields from all other charges in the universe. The logical conclusion is that inertia is of electrical origin. Space, or the ?aether?, has electrical-magnetic properties and energy, exhibited by its impedance. Material bodies also have characteristic impedance. A more fundamental approach shows a body?s inertia arises from its gravitational interaction with the entire universe, not just our galaxy. Calculations are done with relative positions, relative velocities, and relative accelerations between bodies, not with absolute ?inertial? frame locations. The equations that treat this fundamental physics approach calculate the observed increase in mass (inertia) when an object is accelerated toward the speed of light, the radius (size) of a particle becoming smaller when acquiring higher velocity, and further observables. Relativity becomes irrelevant. ___________________ If any of my comments on this paper are found to be misleading, I am open to correction For further discussion, contact me at . . . John K Domen 95 Toby Drive Succasunna NJ 07876 For scientific models of the geocentric cosmological system of the universe, consult chapters 27 and 29 [Geocentricity,1] for a brief qualitative summary of several models. Periodically, articles in The Biblical Astronomer2 expand on these models. --------------------------------- 1 Geocentricity. Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. 1992. Available from Brian V. Lamb, Quarryside, Castletown, Caithness, Scotland KW14 8SS. 2 The Biblical Astronomer, a quarterly journal, 4527 Wetzel Avenue, Cleveland OH 44109-5347, USA.