On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:58 PM, james f woodward wrote:

*Folks,*

A few clarificatory comments are perhaps in order. First, ["therofax" ] has

alluded to "Jim's theory". Flattering as this is, it isn't really right.

I have no "theory" in the usual sense of that word. I am convinced that

Einstein's general relativity theory (GRT) -- without any added on ZPE or

ZPF baggage -- is correct. I am also convinced that GRT fully accounts

for the origin of inertial reaction forces as the gravitational action of

the chiefly distant "matter" [everything, including dark matter and

energy] that gravitates.
Exactly my point! "Distant stars" too small a fraction of the total stuff.

*That is, Mach's principle is correct. It has*

been known for 40 years or more that Mach's principle is a "boundary"

condition on GRT --
Exactly, but I am saying the important boundary is our future event horizon!

*namely, if "critical cosmic matter density" obtains*

and spacetime is flat at the cosmic scale, then inertial reaction forces

are purely gravitational in origin. Cosmic spatiotemporal flatness has

been known to be the the fact of reality since the WMAP results were

reported some years ago. The correctness of Mach's principle, as Hoyle

and Narlikar figured out in the '60s requires that Wheeler-Feynman

"absorber" theory apply to gravity (and presumably electrodynamics).

That fixes the future, and in the post t'Hooft era leads to the talk

about holograms. I suppose you could say that Mach's principle being

correct enables the hologram interpretation. The reverse, however, is

not necessarily true.
So we agree on this fundamental issue.

*Such work as I have done that sometimes gets mistaken for "theory"*

consists of some calculations using the theoretical notions of others

(notably relativity theory) to show that there may well be a way to

ultimately make absurdly benign wormholes -- that is, stargates (a term

familiar to several on this list). Whether those calculations are right

will eventually be sorted out in the laboratory; but in the interrim they

make fodder for interesting speculation.

I might also add that John Cramer's retrocausal signaling experiment

should shed light (so to speak) on whether the future is fixed or not.

Oddly enough, the creator of the transactional interpretation of QM --

which seems to fix the future -- does not himself think that the future

is fully fixed. Just a little bit in advance of the present, freezing

out like ice crystals forming on a pane of glass in winter. . . .
Is that Popper falsifiable?

There is also Aharonov's idea of "post-selection" on our future event horizon.