Gravitation and Electromagnetism

[ernst39]

 

If you get the same answers, then how is your idea testable/falsifiable? You have a different approach — there must be some testable differences in outcomes.

 

A difference between the mainstream approach and mine is that the theory of informatons unifies gravitation and electromagnetism: the informatons are the constituent elements of both gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

 

Unlike the mainstream approach (of electromagnetism), the theory of informatons explains the duality of light. In §6 it is shown that an oscillating point charge in any direction emits a "train"of informatons: their e-indices have a transversal component that macroscopically manifests itself as a transversal E-field that fluctuates harmonically in space, and the macroscopic manifestation of their b-indices is an - also harmonically oscillating - transversal B-field, that is perpendicular to the E-field.This means that the attributes of the informatons explain the emission by an oscillating charge of an electromagnetic wave. On the other hand , some of these informatons show themselves as "photons": informatons transporting a quantum of energy. That explains that an oscillating charge radiates: it emits energy in the form of discrete packets.

 

There are arguments to assume that informatons are more than hypothetical entities, that they really exist:

- the fact that it is possible correctly to describe gravitational and electromagnetic fields as macroscopic manifestations of their attributes

- the fact that it is possible to derive the laws of GEM and Maxwell's laws (laws that experimentally can be checked) from the kinematics of their attributes

- the prediction of the duality of light (and of gravitational radiation).

[swansont]

A difference between the mainstream approach and mine is that the theory of informatons unifies gravitation and electromagnetism: the informatons are the constituent elements of both gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

 

Unlike the mainstream approach (of electromagnetism), the theory of informatons explains the duality of light. In §6 it is shown that an oscillating point charge in any direction emits a "train"of informatons: their e-indices have a transversal component that macroscopically manifests itself as a transversal E-field that fluctuates harmonically in space, and the macroscopic manifestation of their b-indices is an - also harmonically oscillating - transversal B-field, that is perpendicular to the E-field.This means that the attributes of the informatons explain the emission by an oscillating charge of an electromagnetic wave. On the other hand , some of these informatons show themselves as "photons": informatons transporting a quantum of energy. That explains that an oscillating charge radiates: it emits energy in the form of discrete packets.

 

What properties do these "informitons" have? How would I unambiguously detect them?

 

There are arguments to assume that informatons are more than hypothetical entities, that they really exist:

- the fact that it is possible correctly to describe gravitational and electromagnetic fields as macroscopic manifestations of their attributes

- the fact that it is possible to derive the laws of GEM and Maxwell's laws (laws that experimentally can be checked) from the kinematics of their attributes

- the prediction of the duality of light (and of gravitational radiation).

Let's see the derivations. And the laws of GEM — what are they?

[Strange]

Unlike the mainstream approach (of electromagnetism), the theory of informatons explains the duality of light.

 

This is perfectly well explained by quantum theory. Does you theory make some predictions that would allow it to be distinguished from quantum theory?

 

There are arguments to assume that informatons are more than hypothetical entities, that they really exist:

- the fact that it is possible correctly to describe gravitational and electromagnetic fields as macroscopic manifestations of their attributes

- the fact that it is possible to derive the laws of GEM and Maxwell's laws (laws that experimentally can be checked) from the kinematics of their attributes

- the prediction of the duality of light (and of gravitational radiation).

 

All of these can be done by existing theory. So you either need some direct evidence for the existence of "informatons" or you need to show that your theory makes predictions that allow it to be distinguished from existing theory.

 

If you can't do either of these, then it makes no difference if these informations exist or not. In which case, we can employ Occam's razor and discount them.

[Mordred]

My first take on the article may or may not be off, going to study it in greater detail

 

 

If this is your paper can you show the orthogonal group correlations, in particular the O(3.1) orthogonal group, ( Lorentz group) I would also like to see your gauge symmetry breaking .

Those details are missing in your paper, so I cannot see how your running The coupling constants.

 

This papers purpose is to unify gravitons to photons. Gravity vs electromagnetism. I'm surprised you didn't include those details, where is your symmetry breaking?

How do you correlate the Lorentz group to the

 

Su(2)*U(1) group?

The O(3.1)group is the Lorentz group.

 

Your paper refers to relativity. So this should be detailed.

(Feel free to go as technical math or other wise. I most likely can follow)

( I am probably one of the hardest to convince audiences. So I will need the full mathematics.)

Key details conservation of charge, isospin and parity

Feel free to include QED and quantum geometrodynamics. I studied both fields.

( keep in mind, numerous posters on this site have various levels levels of degrees. We may or may not choose to divulge our particulars) myself included

Edited March 18, 2015 by Mordred

[ernst39]

What properties do these "informitons" have? How would I unambiguously detect them?

Let's see the derivations. And the laws of GEM — what are they?

 

In attachment 1 you find an excerpt of A. Acke, Fundamentals of the Theory of Informatons (post #41) in which the concepts "g-information", "informatons", "g-field", "beta-information", "g-induction" are defined.

 

In attachment 2 you find an excerpt of A. Acke, Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268576021_GRAVITATION_EXPLAINED_BY_THE_THEORY_OF_INFORMATONS?ev=prf_pub) with the derivations of the laws of GEM (the analogues of Maxwell's laws).

 

 

 

This is perfectly well explained by quantum theory. Does you theory make some predictions that would allow it to be distinguished from quantum theory?

 

All of these can be done by existing theory. So you either need some direct evidence for the existence of "informatons" or you need to show that your theory makes predictions that allow it to be distinguished from existing theory.

 

If you can't do either of these, then it makes no difference if these informations exist or not. In which case, we can employ Occam's razor and discount them.

 

Some more arguments for the existence of informatons:

- the prediction (§6) of the upper limit of the frequency of the EM-waves radiated by an oscillating charged particle (proton, electron, ...)

- the prediction (§6) that the energy carried by a graviton not only depends on the frequency of the emitter, but also on its nature.

- the theory of informatons not only describes the duality of light, it explains it.

 

Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I do not think that this plays to the disadvantage of the theory of informatons about gravitation and electromagnetism.

 

 

My first take on the article may or may not be off, going to study it in greater detail

 

If this is your paper can you show the orthogonal group correlations, in particular the O(3.1) orthogonal group, ( Lorentz group) I would also like to see your gauge symmetry breaking .

Those details are missing in your paper, so I cannot see how your running The coupling constants.

 

This papers purpose is to unify gravitons to photons. Gravity vs electromagnetism. I'm surprised you didn't include those details, where is your symmetry breaking?

How do you correlate the Lorentz group to the

 

Su(2)*U(1) group?

The O(3.1)group is the Lorentz group.

 

Your paper refers to relativity. So this should be detailed.

(Feel free to go as technical math or other wise. I most likely can follow)

( I am probably one of the hardest to convince audiences. So I will need the full mathematics.)

Key details conservation of charge, isospin and parity

Feel free to include QED and quantum geometrodynamics. I studied both fields.

( keep in mind, numerous posters on this site have various levels levels of degrees. We may or may not choose to divulge our particulars) myself included

 

The theory is developed within the traditions of classical physics. It illustrates the fact that we don't need GRT to explain GEM. In attachment 3 you find some excerpts from A. Acke, Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons, with mathematical deductions in relativistic conditions.

 

 

 

 

uittreksel 1.pdf

uittreksel 2.pdf

uittreksel 3.pdf

[swansont]

"We conclude that an informaton emitted by a moving particle, transports information referring to the velocity of that mass. "

 

Velocity with respect to what?

 

What is the spin of an informaton?

[ernst39]

"We conclude that an informaton emitted by a moving particle, transports information referring to the velocity of that mass. "

 

Velocity with respect to what?

 

What is the spin of an informaton?

 

Velocity with respect to the inertial reference frame relative to which the mass is moving.

 

I used the term "spin" in an older version of the theory. Because it gives rise to confusion, I got it replaced by "g-index".

[swansont]

Velocity with respect to the inertial reference frame relative to which the mass is moving.

 

It's moving with respect to an infinite number of inertial frames. What property of the informaton "encodes" this information?

 

I used the term "spin" in an older version of the theory. Because it gives rise to confusion, I got it replaced by "g-index".

This doesn't answer the question.

 

What is the value of the quantum mechanical intrinsic angular momentum, known as spin? The g-index has the wrong units to be angular momentum.

"Within the cloud there is a stationary state: because the inflow equals

the outflow, each spatial region contains an unchanging number of

informatons and thus a constant quantity of g-information. "

 

Where are the incoming informatons coming from, to maintain this equilibrium?

[Mordred]

 

In attachment 1 you find an excerpt of A. Acke, Fundamentals of the Theory of Informatons (post #41) in which the concepts "g-information", "informatons", "g-field", "beta-information", "g-induction" are defined.

 

In attachment 2 you find an excerpt of A. Acke, Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268576021_GRAVITATION_EXPLAINED_BY_THE_THEORY_OF_INFORMATONS?ev=prf_pub) with the derivations of the laws of GEM (the analogues of Maxwell's laws).

 

 

 

Some more arguments for the existence of informatons:

- the prediction (§6) of the upper limit of the frequency of the EM-waves radiated by an oscillating charged particle (proton, electron, ...)

- the prediction (§6) that the energy carried by a graviton not only depends on the frequency of the emitter, but also on its nature.

- the theory of informatons not only describes the duality of light, it explains it.

 

Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I do not think that this plays to the disadvantage of the theory of informatons about gravitation and electromagnetism.

 

 

 

The theory is developed within the traditions of classical physics. It illustrates the fact that we don't need GRT to explain GEM. In attachment 3 you find some excerpts from A. Acke, Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons, with mathematical deductions in relativistic conditions.

 

 

 

 

None of this answers my questions.

 

The gauge groups I asked about are classical physics. Classical particle physics to be exact.

 

My problem with your entire model is that your trying to show that photons and gravitons can be explained by informatons, but you do not show any detail on how informatons carry charge, spin parity etc.

 

QFT QED, and quantum geometrodynamics already knows how to add the relativity relations to electromagnetic forces. You claim that the Heaviside Maxwell formula is the same as Your theory which doesn't cover how your theory differs from the existing theories.

 

In point of fact it sounds like your trying to claim the works of others.

I refer specifically to this statement.

 

"These are the laws of Heaviside-Maxwell or the laws of GEM"

 

Which is in your second link.

[ernst39]

 

It's moving with respect to an infinite number of inertial frames. What property of the informaton "encodes" this information?

 

This doesn't answer the question.

 

What is the value of the quantum mechanical intrinsic angular momentum, known as spin? The g-index has the wrong units to be angular momentum.

"Within the cloud there is a stationary state: because the inflow equals

the outflow, each spatial region contains an unchanging number of

informatons and thus a constant quantity of g-information. "

 

Where are the incoming informatons coming from, to maintain this equilibrium?

 

1. In 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 we consider a particle that is moving with constant velocity relative to an inertial reference system O along the Z-axis of that system. The characteristic deviation (fig. 8) of the informatons passing near an arbitrary point P is determined by the velocity of their emitter, the point mass. This implies that the sine of the characteristic deviation (for an observer in O) also is determined by the velocity of the mass and so is s-beta that has the dimension of g-information. It's evident that the velocity of the mass and the characteristic deviation both are considerd relative to the same inertial reference frame. They have both another value when the particle is considerd in another inertial reference frame.

 

2. There is no relation between the quantum mechanical intrinsic angular momentum and the g-index of an informaton (post #57).

 

3. Your remark about the equilibrium covers the informatons emitted by a mass at rest in the origin of an inertial reference frame (fig 4). Because the emission rate is constant and because the speed of the informatons also is constant, the rate at which informatons flow into a closed region must be equal to the rate at which they flow out.

[swansont]

2. There is no relation between the quantum mechanical intrinsic angular momentum and the g-index of an informaton (post #57).

Which STILL doesn't answer the question of what the spin of an informaton is.

 

 

3. Your remark about the equilibrium covers the informatons emitted by a mass at rest in the origin of an inertial reference frame (fig 4). Because the emission rate is constant and because the speed of the informatons also is constant, the rate at which informatons flow into a closed region must be equal to the rate at which they flow out.

 

How is that possible? Where does this information come from, and how does that work with an inverse-square reduction that you must have for a spherically symmetric system as described?

[Mordred]

I still don't see how your handling the invariance of c within your papers. This is one of the key problems with GEM.

That was why I asked about the Lorentz group

[ernst39]

Which STILL doesn't answer the question of what the spin of an informaton is.

 

How is that possible? Where does this information come from, and how does that work with an inverse-square reduction that you must have for a spherically symmetric system as described?

 

1. An informaton doesn't have "spin". The fundamental attribute is called "g-index" and defined in the postulate of the emission of informatons. The "g-index" of an informaton refers to information carrried by the informaton about the position of its emitter and equals the elementary quantity of g-information. It is the only attribute of an informaton emitted by a neutral object at rest relative to an inertial reference frame O. It is represented by a vectorial quantity s_g that (in O) points to the emitter, the magnitude of s_g is the "elementary quantity of information".

(In early versions of the theory, I indicated s_g with the term "spin", but because that that led to confusion with quantum mechanics I changed the name in "g-index".)

 

2. We consider an inertial reference frame O and a particle in its origin O. According to the postulate of the emission of informatons, that particle continuously emits informatons at a rate proportional to its rest mass and generates an expanding spherical cloud of informatons. From the fact that the rate at which informatons flow through a spherical surface with center O and radius r is equal to the emission rate, it follows that the rate at which informatons flow through a surface-element of that sphere is proportional to the inverse square of r. You can find the details of the calculation in attachment 1 (#60)

[Mordred]

Here I'd rather use this than your informatons, particularly as your not answering our specific questions I had to go elsewhere to find the answers

 

GAUGE SYMMETRY AND GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003115

Edited March 18, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

1. An informaton doesn't have "spin".

Everything has a spin. It's a fundamental property. It may be spin zero, but that has certain implications for your theory.

 

(In early versions of the theory, I indicated s_g with the term "spin", but because that that led to confusion with quantum mechanics I changed the name in "g-index".)

 

Manufacturing terminology will tend to do that.

 

2. We consider an inertial reference frame O and a particle in its origin O. According to the postulate of the emission of informatons, that particle continuously emits informatons at a rate proportional to its rest mass and generates an expanding spherical cloud of informatons. From the fact that the rate at which informatons flow through a spherical surface with center O and radius r is equal to the emission rate, it follows that the rate at which informatons flow through a surface-element of that sphere is proportional to the inverse square of r. You can find the details of the calculation in attachment 1 (#60)

No need to explain to me something that I pointed out. What I want to know is where the incoming information is coming from, to create this equilibrium, and how that's possible. If the outgoing informiton flux decreases as 1/r², how can the incoming flux — presumably from some other source — match it? That would require the flux from the remote source to be increasing with distance.

[ernst39]

No need to explain to me something that I pointed out. What I want to know is where the incoming information is coming from, to create this equilibrium, and how that's possible. If the outgoing informiton flux decreases as 1/r², how can the incoming flux — presumably from some other source — match it? That would require the flux from the remote source to be increasing with distance.

 

1.Where comes the g-information from?

 

Given the fact of the orientation of the gravitational force F_G exerted by a particle with mass m₁ in the origin O of an inertial reference frame O on another particle with mass m at an arbitrary point P (it points from P to O) and given the fact that the magnitude of this force depends on the mass m (it is directly proportional to it) and on the distance r from P to O (it is inversely proportional to it), particle m must receive "information" about the presence in space of particle m₁. In other words particle m₁ must send "information" about its mass and about its position to particle m. Because this conclusion is independent of the position and the mass of particle m we can generalize it and posit that a particle manifests itself in space by emitting information about its mass and about its position.

We consider this type of information as a substantial element of nature and call it "g-information". We propose that it is transported by mass and energy less granular entities that rush through space with the speed of light. Because they carry nothing but information, we call these grains "informatons". This means that we assume that a material object manifests its substantiality (its physical presence) by continuously emitting informatons.

 

2. Flux and flux-density

 

When we consider the situation of a particle in the origin of an inertial reference frame surrounded by a closed surface, the g-flux through that surface (the rate at which g-information flows through the surface) must be idependent of its form and must be equal to the rate at which the particle is emitting g-information (conservation of g-information). In the special case where the surface is a sphere with center O and radius r, it follows that the g-flux through that surface is independent of r, but that the density of the g-flux (the rate per unit surface at which g-information passes near a point of that surface) is proportional to r^--2.

When we consider a closed surface that doesn't surround the particle, the incoming g-flux (generated by the particle) must be equal to the outcoming g-flux. Indeed the informatons emitted by the particle at O move along radial paths and fly right through the closed surface.

 

I still don't see how your handling the invariance of c within your papers. This is one of the key problems with GEM.

That was why I asked about the Lorentz group

 

In my papers c is invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformation.

[swansont]

1.Where comes the g-information from?

 

Given the fact of the orientation of the gravitational force F_G exerted by a particle with mass m₁ in the origin O of an inertial reference frame O on another particle with mass m at an arbitrary point P (it points from P to O) and given the fact that the magnitude of this force depends on the mass m (it is directly proportional to it) and on the distance r from P to O (it is inversely proportional to it), particle m must receive "information" about the presence in space of particle m₁. In other words particle m₁ must send "information" about its mass and about its position to particle m. Because this conclusion is independent of the position and the mass of particle m we can generalize it and posit that a particle manifests itself in space by emitting information about its mass and about its position.

We consider this type of information as a substantial element of nature and call it "g-information". We propose that it is transported by mass and energy less granular entities that rush through space with the speed of light. Because they carry nothing but information, we call these grains "informatons". This means that we assume that a material object manifests its substantiality (its physical presence) by continuously emitting informatons.

 

2. Flux and flux-density

 

When we consider the situation of a particle in the origin of an inertial reference frame surrounded by a closed surface, the g-flux through that surface (the rate at which g-information flows through the surface) must be idependent of its form and must be equal to the rate at which the particle is emitting g-information (conservation of g-information). In the special case where the surface is a sphere with center O and radius r, it follows that the g-flux through that surface is independent of r, but that the density of the g-flux (the rate per unit surface at which g-information passes near a point of that surface) is proportional to r^--2.

When we consider a closed surface that doesn't surround the particle, the incoming g-flux (generated by the particle) must be equal to the outcoming g-flux. Indeed the informatons emitted by the particle at O move along radial paths and fly right through the closed surface.

Repeating yourself is not helpful. It didn't address the question I asked, which is why I asked the question.

 

"The emission of informatons fills the space around m0 with an expanding cloud of g- information. This cloud has the shape of a sphere whose surface goes away from the centre O - the position of the particle - with the speed of light.

- Within the cloud there is a stationary state: because the inflow equals

the outflow, each spatial region contains an unchanging number of informatons "

How can the incoming flux and outgoing flux always match to achieve this stationary state, when each one will decrease (as 1/r²) from their respective sources?

[ernst39]

How can the incoming flux and outgoing flux always match to achieve this stationary state, when each one will decrease (as 1/r²) from their respective sources?

 

It are not the fluxes that decrease as 1/r² but the flux-densities: the flux per unit surface. The match between the incoming and the outcoming fluxes is a consequence of the fact that the surface-elements increase as r².

[swansont]

 

It are not the fluxes that decrease as 1/r² but the flux-densities: the flux per unit surface. The match between the incoming and the outcoming fluxes is a consequence of the fact that the surface-elements increase as r².

 

Flux is sometimes (often) defined as number per unit area. I am using that definition. The number passing through the entire surface will be called the total flux. From any single source, flux varies as 1/r², while total flux is constant. OK?

 

The total flux leaving the volume from mass M1 is a constant. But the claim is also that there is a stationary state, with the incoming flux - FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, e.g mass M2 — that balances this. That does NOT include the entire volume around mass M2.

 

So, let's take the earth and sun as an example. If you draw a sphere around the earth, the flux leaving the earth all passes through that sphere, and has some value at a given r, with the number/area dropping off as r gets bigger. But the flux from the sun does not all pass through that sphere. The flux from the sun also decreases as the distance from it increases.

 

IOW, the flux from the earth is largest close to the earth. The flux from the sun is largest close to the sun. They can only be equal at one point.

 

Where is this stationary state?

[Mordred]

I've looked over your papers a few times where is your Lorentz boost?

 

You use Euclidean geometry exclusively but do not show or refer to any explanation of time dilation, which by the way has been tested in numerous experiments.

 

Everything I read is strictly In the Newtonian sense.

This is counter to QEM, which does add the Lorentz boost. Your also not even using the same metrics that one typically finds in GEM, why is that?

 

This is why I referred to the O(3.1) Lorentz group. I do not see anything in any of your metrics covering this

[ernst39]

 

Flux is sometimes (often) defined as number per unit area. I am using that definition. The number passing through the entire surface will be called the total flux. From any single source, flux varies as 1/r², while total flux is constant. OK?

 

The total flux leaving the volume from mass M1 is a constant. But the claim is also that there is a stationary state, with the incoming flux - FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, e.g mass M2 — that balances this. That does NOT include the entire volume around mass M2.

 

So, let's take the earth and sun as an example. If you draw a sphere around the earth, the flux leaving the earth all passes through that sphere, and has some value at a given r, with the number/area dropping off as r gets bigger. But the flux from the sun does not all pass through that sphere. The flux from the sun also decreases as the distance from it increases.

 

IOW, the flux from the earth is largest close to the earth. The flux from the sun is largest close to the sun. They can only be equal at one point.

 

Where is this stationary state?

 

What you call "flux" is in my text "g-field" (density of the g-information flow) E_g , and wat you call "total flux" is my text "g-flux" (intensity of the g-information flow) (see attached file). In any case the g-flux through a closed surface is completely defined by the enclosed mass. Masses from outside don't contribute to that g-flux what implies that the total quantity of g-information (emitted by enclosed and not enclosed masses at rest) in the space enclosed by a surface is constant (that is what I mean with "stationary state"). This implies not that those extern masses don't contribute to the g-field at a point of that enclosed space (see attached file)

bijlage.pdf

[swansont]

 

What you call "flux" is in my text "g-field" (density of the g-information flow) E_g , and wat you call "total flux" is my text "g-flux" (intensity of the g-information flow) (see attached file). In any case the g-flux through a closed surface is completely defined by the enclosed mass. Masses from outside don't contribute to that g-flux what implies that the total quantity of g-information (emitted by enclosed and not enclosed masses at rest) in the space enclosed by a surface is constant (that is what I mean with "stationary state"). This implies not that those extern masses don't contribute to the g-field at a point of that enclosed space (see attached file)

 

Informatons flow out from masses (at c) right? Where does the "inflow" come from, then?

[Mordred]

How is

 

[latex]m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-{\beta^2}}}[/latex]

 

Where you have [latex]\beta=(\frac{v}{c})[/latex] which is the velocity coefficient, that you've renamed as g informatons (tacky if you ask me)

 

However you dropped the lorentz factor?

 

[latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{1-\beta^2}[/latex]

 

the same as the proper formula?

 

[latex]m=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2}{c^2}}}[/latex]

Edited March 20, 2015 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Here look at the lorentz matrix to see what I have been asking about.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

I honestly don't feel like fighting the latex on matrix postings

hrrm all those lines with

 

[latex]-\beta\gamma[/latex]

Nvr mind just wasn't connecting the dots brain fart

Edited March 20, 2015 by Mordred

[ernst39]

I've looked over your papers a few times where is your Lorentz boost?

 

You use Euclidean geometry exclusively but do not show or refer to any explanation of time dilation, which by the way has been tested in numerous experiments.

 

Everything I read is strictly In the Newtonian sense.

This is counter to QEM, which does add the Lorentz boost. Your also not even using the same metrics that one typically finds in GEM, why is that?

 

This is why I referred to the O(3.1) Lorentz group. I do not see anything in any of your metrics covering this

 

I am sorry that I cannot answer to all your questions. I think that's because my deduction of GEM is completely independent of GRT.

 

When I developed the theory, it was my intention to describe a possible microscopic mechanism that could explain the laws of GEM and EM, and the phenomena of the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. An important starting point was the assumption that space and time are not constituent elements of nature but elements of our thinking about nature.

To give a physical meaning to the concept "field" as mediator for gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, I developed the idea that "information carried by informatons " is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. That implies that this type of information is considered as one of the constituent elements of nature.

In my papers I show that the known and experimentally confirmed laws of gravitation (Newton, GEM, ...) and electromagnetism (Coulomb, Maxwell, ...) can be derived from the "postulate of the emission of informatons" only using the mathematical techniques of calculus.

The theory is consistent. An argument for this is the fact that the deduction from it of the force between two particles that with the same speed describe parallel paths gives the same expression as SRT (post #55, attachment3, p.4). Another argument can be found in the deduction of the relation between the force and the linear momentum (attachment to this post).

 

A few answers:

-The metrics I use to formulate GEM are chosen with the intention to accentuate the analogy with EM

- I limit myself to special cases where a mass at rest relative to an inertial reference frame O' is considered by an observer linked to an inertial reference frame O relative to which O' moves with constant velocity v. In that situations I may use the simplest form of the Lorentz-transformation.

- I didn't rename "beta": I call information about the velocity of a moving object "beta-information".

 

In any case, thanks for your appreciated remarks and links.

 

 

 

Informatons flow out from masses (at c) right? Where does the "inflow" come from, then?

 

The outflow of informatons from masses is postulated as the way masses manifest themselve "at a distance". The hypothesis is that a mass shows its substantiallity (its physical presence) by the emission of informatons. By emitting information at a rate proportional to its mass, a particle sends information about its position (contained in the attribute s_g) and its mass to other particles.

attachment.pdf