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.

Because the mathematical deductions of the theory lead to the GEM description of gravity and to the Maxwell description of electromagnetism, the theory would be untenable if observations would be made that conflict with these descriptions of the macroscopic world.

Why it's not a theory? I'm waiting for serious arguments that demonstrate that the idea doesn't make sense.

I repeat that the theory of informatons is developed with the only intention to explain - in a rather simple way - the formal analogy between the GEM description of gravito-electromagnetism and the Maxwell description of electromagnetism. Just as all other theories also this theory starts from an hypothesis, namely that "information" is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, that these fields are more than purely mathematical or geometric constructions. From that hyposthesis the laws of GEM an EM - that are controllable statements about how nature works - are mathematically deduced. At his time I cannot prove that informatons - introduced as the constituent elements of information - exist, nor can I prove that they don't exist. Informatons are conceived as the constituent elements of the fields that play an intermediate role in the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions as they are described by GEM and EM. Acceleration is the effect of the influence of the field (the cloud of informatons as a whole), not of the individual informatons.

In §6 of the article it is explained that accelerated masses radiate gravitational energy. That Newtonian physics don't cover this effect is because Newtonian description of gravity (unlinke GEM) don't take in account the effects of the movement (rotation) of gravitating objects. In the context of the theory of informatons, the primary effect of a gravatational field on a particle is accelerating that particle. The concept "force of gravity" is in §5.9 defined as the action that an observer couples to that effect in the case of a particle with rest mass and is therefore not applicable in the case of a photon. "Geodetics" are concepts introduced in another context.

No, informatons don't have energy nor (angular) momentum. The tendency of mass to become blind for extern g-fields (flows of g-information generated by other masses) exerts an action on a particle: a free mass is accelerating and in the case of an anchored particle, a reaction compensates the action. In post #94 the gravitational force FG on a particle with rest mass m0 in a gravitational field Eg is defined by: FG = m0.Eg. As soon the gravitational force is defined, gravitational energy and momentum as well as the conservation laws can be deduced by classical mechanics. Per exemple energy is introduced as follows. Let's consider the construction of a system of two particles anchored in an inertial reference frame. Starting with an empty space, the placement of the first particle doesn't demand work. To bring - through equilibrium states - the second mass to its place, there is needed an external force Fext = - FG (FG is the gravitational force exerted by the first mass on the second). The work done by this force is the gravitational potential energy cumulated in the system of the two particles. This reasoning can easily be extended to a system of N masses and to a mass continuum.

Because informatons move at c, any change in the manner in which the source moves manifests itself at a remote particle with a time delay L/c.

Indeed, gravitational phenomena propagate with the speed of light.

It is extensively explained in §5.9 of the article. Here is the explanation for the case of particles anchored in an inertial reference frame. Let us consider a set of particles anchored in an inertial reference frame O. They create and maintain a gravitational field that at each point of the space linked to O is completely determined by the vector Eg. Each particle is "immersed" in a cloud of g-information. At every point, except its own anchorage, the mass of each particle contributes to the construction of that cloud. Let us, in particular, consider the particle m anchored at the point P. If the other particles were not there, m would be at the center of a perfectly spherical cloud of g-information. In the considered situation this is not the case: the emission of g-information by the other particles is responsible for the disturbance of that "characteristic symmetry". Because Eg at P represents the intensity of the flow of g-information send to P by the masses of the other particles, the extent of disturbance of that characteristic symmetry, in the direct vicinity of m, is determined by Eg at P. If it was free to move, the particle m could restore the characteristic symmetry of the g-information cloud (the g-field) in its direct vicinity: it would suffice to accelerate with an amount a = Eg. Accelerating this way has the effect that the extern g-field (the field generated by the other particles) disappears at the origin of the reference frame anchored to m. If it accelerates that way, the particle would become "blind" for the g-information send to P by the other particles, it would "see" only its own spherical g-information cloud. We can conclude that a point mass anchored at a point of a gravitational field is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by Eg, the g-field at that point. Once the anchorage is broken, the point mass acquires a vectorial acceleration a that equals Eg. So, a particle m anchored at a point of a gravitational field experiences an action because of that field, an action that is compensated by the anchorage - That actionis proportional to the extent to which the characteristic symmetry of the own gravitational field in the direct vicinity of P is disturbed by the extern g-field, thus to the value of Eg at P. - It depends also on the rest mass m0of the particle. Indeed, the greater its mass the more compact (the denser) the g-information cloud created by that particle in its direct vicinity. That implies that the disturbing effect of the extern g-field Eg on the spherical symmety of the "own" field of the paricle is smaller when its rest mass is greater. We can conclude that the action that tends to accelerate a particle in a gravitational field must be proportional to Eg , the field to which the particle is exposed; and to m0, its rest mass. We represent that action as FG and called this vectorial quantity: "the force developed by the g-field on the particle" or the "gravitational force on the particle". We define it by the relation: FG = m0.EG

Correction of # 88: the concept "mass" doesn't play any role in the calcularion. Because my starting point is that a material entity reacts on the presence of a gravitational field by accelerating in order to become blind for that field. I appreciate your critics and remarks. I surely will take account of them but that will take time.

As attachment it is shown how to calculate the path of a photon in a gravitational field with the theory of informatons. The mass of the photon doesn't play a role. Bijlage 2.pdf