ernst39

In the framework of the gravitoelectromagnetic description of gravity (GEM), the gravitational field plays an intermediary role in the interaction between masses. In that context, the gravitational field is considered as a constituent element of nature, set up by a given distribution of - whether or not moving - masses and it is, just as the electromagnetic field, defined by two three-dimensional intertwined vector fields: the “g-field” Eg and the “g-induction” Bg. These vector fields each have a value defined at every point of space and time and are thus, relative to an inertial reference frame O, regarded as functions of the space and time coordinates. Just as the electromagnetic field (E, B), the gravitational field (Eg, Bg) is mathematically defined by a set of four partial differential equations, the “GEM-equations” (or the “Maxwell-Heaviside equations”) that describe how Eg and Bg vary in space due to their sources - the masses and the mass flows - and how they are intertwined. These equations nor their solutions indicate an existence of causal links between Eg and Bg . Therefore, we must conclude that a gravitational field is a dual entity always having a “field-” and an “induction-” component simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable masses and mass flows. GEM is consistent with special relativity. The GEM equations are analogue to Maxwell’s equations in EM and it is proved that these are consistent with special relativity. Thus, the Maxwell-Heaviside equations are invariant under a Lorentz transformation. So, the principle of relativity is valid in the context of GEM. And, from the postulate of the gravitational action, it follows that the same is true for the principle of equivalence.. Certain concrete predictions made on the basis of the gravito-electromagnetic description of gravity are perfectly in line with the results of cosmological observations. Let's still remark that: 1. by taking into account the kinematics of the gravitating objects, GEM is an extension of Newtonian gravity. 2. the starting point of GEM differs fundamentally from the starting point of GRT, because in the context of GEM space and time don’t play an active role in the description of the gravitational phenomena and laws. It are elements of the description of nature that do not participate in the physical processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

It's apparently impossible for mainstream physics to see something positive in theories that start from a different vison on space and time . I repeat: my starting point is that space and time are not elements of nature, but elements of our thinking about nature. I cannot prove this, any more as I can prove the contrary. As all theories, the theory presented here is the result of an intellectual game. My reasonings and deductions are consistently within my ideas about space and time. They are "bogus" within other frames.

The gravitational field, this is the macroscopic manifestation of g-information, has measurable properties and intermediates in gravitational interactions between masses, it makes interaction possible.

The hypothesis is (attachment 2): A point mass m0 at rest at the origin of an inertial reference frame is emitting informatons at a rate K.m0 (with K = c2/h); an informaton carries an elementary quantity of g-information characterized by its g-index sg = (1/(K.eta0).er , where eta0 = 1/(4.pi.G) [with G the gravitational constant]. In the article (post #41) I formulate (for clarity) that hypothesis in what you call "five arbitraty rules". To understand where the idea is coming from: see §4.1 and §4.2 This is an unfounded and biased "assumption". It shows little respect for those who post here on "Speculations". attachment 2.pdfI forgot the attachment to the previous post. You find it here.

In my article (post #41), I show that the GEM-description of gravitation (including the mathematical formulation of GEM) can be deduced from the (only) hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of gravitational fields. In the case of Occam's razor one must compare my method to other deductions who lead to the same result (explanation of GEM).

1 = explanation of GEM with informatons should be compared to other explanations or deductions of GEM 2 = description of GEM

Does the insight that there is no evidence of the foundations of any (phsical) theory only apply for not-mainstream theories? Another formulation of Occam's principle: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better".

If GEM works than is that not thanks to one or other theory. If there are several theories who can explain the mathematical formalism of GEM, Occam's razor can be used to make a selection.

My theory leads to the formalism of GEM and this is at the moment the object of numerous tests. I agree, but I repeat what I said in post # 128: there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, but that applies to all physical theories.

My approach doesn't start from GRT to explain GEM, but from the hypothesis that "information carried by informatons" is the substance of the gravitational field.

When I admit that it is not testable, I admit that there is no evidence of the foundations of the theory, what applies to alle physical theories. (post #116) The model is for GEM (and EM) that explains phenomena that classical (Newtonian) physics doesn't.

This is a possible opinion, not a motiviated evaluation.

The point is that the "theory of informatons" - whose fundamentals are presented in post # 41 - provides a theoretical foundation for the presumption of Heaviside that there is a formal analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism; and that it - by extension - also provides a theoretical basis for GEM. It was not the intention nor the ambition to make statements about the behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level.

The theory has no problems with conservation and transfer of momentum and energy on the macroscopic level, but she is not developed with the aim to explain the interactions between elementary particles.

I am relying on the physics of the calculus based courses for science and engineering students and on special relativity. Adding to the arsenal of physical concepts "information carried by informatons" makes it possible to clarify the nature of and the relation between gravitational and electromagnetic fields, and demonstrates the need to extend Newton's laws of universal gravitation, what leads to the mathematical formalism of GEM. The theory identifies the informatons as the constituent elements of gravitational (and EM) fields, and shows that the laws governing these fields (the mathematical formalism of GEM (and EM)) mathematically can be deduced from the kinematics of the informatons. One could say that the relation between the theory of informatons and GEM (and EM) is similar to that of the "kinetic theory of gases" to the "ideal-gas law": the informatons play in the case of fields - to a certain extent - the role that the molecules play in the case of gases.