As shown in the attached file (ATTRACTION BETWEEN MOVING WIRES) the wires will attract less when they are moving in the same direction and more when they move in opposite directions. The effect of the movement is only relevant when the speed of the wires is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light. The calculations are based on GEM.

Article GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS-2

Thierry,

There is more simple task: there are two charged point masses so that the electrical repulsing is equal to gravitational attraction when the masses are at rest. It seems evident that in this case the relativity principle works so if in this frame the masses are accelerated to some speed, the balance must be the same – why that is so?

In the 2009 paper https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703043.pdf

(Sec.3.8.2) there is a version of the explanation ; others -?

Cheers

Sergey, it is allowed to ask your own questions by creating a new thread in RG.

For the time being, I remain here with my above question about the attraction of moving masses...

Since you are using Newton gravity, it means the velocities are small and there is no deviation from Newton's law. To get the chance of a difference you must have much higher velocity and use Einstein gravity. Then you get an argument about what the difference should be.

Infinities don't occur in nature. So there is no way to measure a difference. There are threads about frame dragging, but they don't predict a gravity change for your cases.

If you apply a Lagrangian or Lagrangian Density, the gravity decreases as the speed increases for both cases. Then you have to justify having used Lagrangians.

"Since you are using Newton gravity".  I didn't say I used Newton gravity.

Maybe you prefer "a very long wire" instead of "infinite"?

What is your final answer in both cases?

Thierry,

The gravitational attraction between the two "finite" wires, will change precisely by the same amount of energy that was required to change the velocity from 0, to v, relative to the frame of reference where the two wires are initially at rest. The direction doesn't matter. In nature, objects cannot spontaneously change their velocity. Work must be done, energy must be input, and the gravitational attraction will change accordingly.

Todd, I see. How would you define velocity 0?

"The direction doesn't matter.". Because the actual theory you use isn't able to cope with it? Or is there a fundamental reason?

The answer is: "The same as if nonmoving."

For evidently, special relativity is presupposed.

The total absence of any related gravitational energy, when a mass is moving, is strange to me. When a mass is moving, I consider it moving wrt another (large) gravity field, such as the Sun or a planet.

The energy balance between masses that don't move and masses that move should not be the same, if one considers that gravity fields are emanated by masses, and cause Gaussian fluxes.

Wouldn't the kinetic energy be emanated as well in one or the other way?

As shown in the attached file (ATTRACTION BETWEEN MOVING WIRES) the wires will attract less when they are moving in the same direction and more when they move in opposite directions. The effect of the movement is only relevant when the speed of the wires is of the same order of magnitude as the speed of light. The calculations are based on GEM.

Article GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS-2

Antoine, excellent work! I see that you also concluded that the energy balance between masses that don't move and masses that move should not be the same.

In your explanation, you use a second gravity field, similar to magnetism, that has the dimensions of [Hz]. So, the velocity of a mass is expressed in the emission of that second gravity field, which is then (in its mathematical description) perpendicular to the velocity vector.

Moreover, you find that the like-moving and opposite-moving mass flows give different results.

As for the decision if like-moving mass flows are a bit less attracting, and opposite-moving mass flows are a bit more attracting, I suppose that this is a priori choice, and should be found by experiment?

Thierry,

If the conclusions of my calculations would be contradicted by experimental facts It would mean that I have made a mathematical error or that  there is something wrong with GEM, a theory that can be considered as a further development of the classical theory of the gravitational field (Newton).

The gravitational interactions can be described by introducing the “gravitational field”: each material object manifests its substantiality in space by creating and maintaining a vector field and each object in that field experiences a tendency to change its state of motion.

The “field theory” considers the gravitational field as the entity that mediates in the gravitational interaction. This is further developed by Oliver Heaviside and Oleg Jefimenko: in the “theory of gravito-electromagnetism” (GEM) they describe the gravitational field starting from the idea that it must be isomorphic with the electromagnetic one. This implies that it should be characterized by two vectorial quantities that are analogue to respectively the electric field and the magnetic induction ; that the relations governing these quantities should be analogue to Maxwell’s laws; and that the gravitational interactions are the effect of a force that is analogue to the “Lorentz force”.

Although GEM describes the gravitational phenomena in a correct and coherent manner, it doesn’t create clarity about the physical nature of gravity: the gravitational field is considered as a purely mathematical construction.

In “Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons”, I give a physical meaning to the gravitational field by developing the hypothesis that its substance is “g-information”: information carried by “informatons”. This hypothesis allows to mathematically deduce the laws of GEM from the kinematics of the informatons and to explain the gravitational interactions as the effect of the tendency of a material object to accelerate in order to become blind for flows of g-information generated by other objects;  it implies the existence of gravitational waves and gravitons.

Colleagues, I have not yet penetrated into the problem and did not read your texts. But I just have a question regarding the statement of the problem (I admit that this is perhaps dumb question): Is it possible a movement of gravitating bodies at the same velocity?

Dear A. V. Guglielmi,

"Is it possible a movement of gravitating bodies at the same velocity?"

This is indeed an interesting question. Do you ask this in the light of a certain existing theory?

The example I used is inspired upon the experiment in electromagnetism, in which two parallel wires are conducting a current, in the same direction or in opposite directions.

Obtaining exactly the same experimental setup with physical mass wires at a certain velocity, will not be that easy to perform, physically.

However, even theoretically, I think it is useful to analyse this situation.

Maybe do you have a suggestion of a more feasible experiment in the same sense?

Prof. Guglielmi,

1. An example of gravitating bodies at the same velocity is a set of two particles with rest masses m1 and m2 that are anchored in an inertial frame O’ that itself is moving with constant velocity v relative to the inertial frame O in the direction perpendicular to the line joining the particles.

In O’ the masses are at rest. According to Newton’s law of universal gravitation, they exert on each other equal but opposite forces F’.  In O both masses are moving with constant speed v in the direction perpendicular to the line joining them.  From GEM as well as from SRT, it follows that the magnitude of the force F that they exert on each other in O is: F = F’.(1 – β²)1/2

2. The infinite parallel wires (introduced in the question) must be regarded as a model for two parallel wires - whose length is very large compared to their mutual distance - that are anchored in an inertial reference frame O’ that itself is moving with constant velocity v relative to the inertial frame O in the direction of the wires.  It is the intention of my calculation to show how  this situation in the context of GEM  theoreticly can be studied.

I would guess that in both cases, Newton's laws will prevail. The velocity dependent forces will be the inertial forces which in turn follow directly from Newton's laws of motion in an inertial frame of reference. This is in contrast to mainstream teaching which argues that the inertial forces are additional fictitious forces that only show up when a system is observed from a rotating frame of reference. The inertial forces are in fact in the same genre as the electromagnetic forces, differing only in the manner of interaction with the background luminiferous medium. In the case of the inertial forces, the rotation is in the atoms or molecules, whereas in electromagnetism, the rotation is in the alignment of the tiny rotating dipoles that comprise the luminiferous medium.

Dear Colleagues, thank you very much!

I will read your explanations carrefully some later.

Regards,

Anatol

Colleagues, excuse me, but I do not cut in in the problem.

If the gravitational field is isomorphic to the electromagnetic field, it is nothing but an electromagnetic field.

As for the information, I understand it in the sense of Shannon. You say, as I understand your texts , about something other.

Of course, I will thinking, but I do not understand why you are not satisfied by the elegant theories of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein?

Anatol Guglielmi

Prof. Guglielmi,

“If the gravitational field is isomorphic to the electromagnetic field, it is nothing but an electromagnetic field.”

With the term “isomorphic” is, in this context, referred to the formal analogy between the gravitational and the electromagnetic phenomena. In gravitation the g-field Eg and the g-induction Bg play the same role as the electric field E and the magnetic induction B in EM; and the mathematical expressions of the laws governing the gravitational phenomena are analogue to that governing the electromagnetic one.

“As for the information, I understand it in the sense of Shannon. You say, as I understand your texts , about something other.”

Yes, the definition of g-information is given in §1.2 and §1.3 of “Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons”.

“Of course, I will thinking, but I do not understand why you are not satisfied by the elegant theories of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein?”

Gravito-electromagnetism (GEM) is an extension of Newton’s theory: where Newton’s theory satisfies perfectly to describe the gravitational attraction between objects at rest, GEM takes also the kinematics of the gravitating masses into account. Maxwell’s theory satisfies perfectly to describe electromagnetism. As for Einstein’s GRT, is it capable to lead to an answer to the question of this treat?

I meant the three theories. (However, Newton's theory is a limiting case of Einstein's theory.) It is clear that Maxwell's theory exists by itself. With the caveat that Maxwell's equations can be naturally written in covariant form. Brilliant attempts by Weyl and by Kaluza combine gravity and electromagnetism are considered unsuccessful. All this, of course, well known.

But I meant that the three theories work effectively.

And they are gorgeous.

Anatol

Dear Prof. Guglielmi,

Indeed, these theories work. But are they well enough representing the reality?

There are lots of issues that can be explained (straightforwardly described) physically if we accept that the velocity of masses is transmitted by gravity, such as:

-the formation of (spinning and rotating) stars and galaxies out of randomly moving nebulae,

-the shape of supernova SN1987A,

-the motion statistics of the asteroids,

-the flatness of dics galaxies,

-the flatness of the solar system,

-Saturn's rings and its multiple tiny rings,

-the formation of disc galaxies from random galaxies,

-the formation of bar galaxies out of disc galaxies,

-the missing windings problem in disc galaxies.

So, to me, it is worth analyzing the basic principles of the transmission of velocity by gravity.

Probably the part that gravity takes doesn't tell everything, because nuclear reactions play a role as well in star and galaxy formation. However, there are also predictions that can be formulated by the means of velocity-dependent gravity, such as:

-the expansion of stars to red giants, and back to white dwarfs,

-the way how bursts occur by black holes.

Cordially

The origin of GEM theory appears from Einstein himself. In his book 'The meaning of relativity', GEM theory, equivalent to linearized GR, is introduced in formula (118). Here we see the velocity and acceleration dependent terms in the interaction which are fully equivalent to magnetic and inductive forces in electromagnetism. The reason for this equivalence is that these terms are motional effects arising solely due to the fact that interactions take time and this time is the same for gravitation and electromagnetism.

I assume that these linearized equations contain all of GR if you apply them in a retarded fashion. I did that to explore the source of inertia:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273306994_Sources_of_inertia_in_an_expanding_universe

Article Sources of inertia in an expanding universe

Dear Kjell,

You have an interesting looking paper that treats many subjects at once, which is heavy for me to answer in a short time.

Also, you write an excellent clarification: "we see the velocity and acceleration dependent terms in the interaction which are fully equivalent to magnetic and inductive forces in electromagnetism. The reason for this equivalence is that these terms are motional effects arising solely due to the fact that interactions take time and this time is the same for gravitation and electromagnetism."

Indeed! however, the retardation of the fields and the induction are two different effects, because for symmetric and steady systems such as a spinning sphere, still one effect exists (the induction), while the retardation doesn't play a role any more.

There are many denominations, like GEM, linearized GR, the eq.(118) from Einstein's book, trying to describe the effect that the velocity of masses is transmitted by gravity in a second field, by a pseudovector.

The reason of my concern is that one has introduced wrongly the Lorentz covariance in GEM, based upon the wrong equivalence principle of reference frames, while the retardation of the fields are exactly doing the same, but can be explicitly expressed by Jefimenko's equations for gravity.

Oleg Jefimenko proved the equivalence between the retardation of the fields and the Lorentz Transformations. Hence, if the retardation is included for non-steady systems, it is useless to introduce the Lorentz covariance anyway. Moreover, Jefimenko proved that velocity doesn't result in an intrinsic change of time. Instead clock rates can retard according to equations that are not always the same.

Consequently, for steady systems (without retardation to be taken into account), the Lorentz covariance is not only uninteresting, it is also wrong. For non-steady systems it is not useful since time is not intrinsic.

I agree that Einstein formulated something that is vaguely similar than Heaviside's gravitomagnetism. However, after Einstein's equation (118) his text says:

"The inert mass is proportional to 1 + σ, and therefore increases when ponderable masses approach the test body."

This is in total contradiction with (Heaviside's and Jefimenko's) Gravitomagnetism. Inertial mass doesn't increase with speed.

You see that there are many differences, and that it cannot be justified to use other theories or maths without truly analyzing the very physics step by step.

That is why I asked this question in RG. It is very important to understand the action of velocity of parallel wires, in like directions and in opposite directions.

Back to the original question, I would like to consider the same question of the parallel moving wires, but curved in a large circle, with one wire orbiting "inside" the other in a closer orbit, and both wires orbiting in the same plane.

If now we take the inner circling wire much more massive, and the outer circling wire much thinner, we have a similar setup as with the spinning sun and the planets.

Then, the question arises in which orbit direction will the outer wire be the most stable? In prograde (same direction) or in retrograde (opposite directions) way?

When we look at any of the examples in the universe, it is found that in the large majority of the situations, the prograde setup occurs. It seems to be the most stable.

Following that hypothesis, moving wires in the same direction will be more stable, and attract.

We can test this by putting the outer wire-orbit under an angle wrt the inner, more heavy wire.

A good imitation of that situation is the spinning Sun and the orbiting Earth. (see annexed drawing)

In the annexed drawing, an inclined orbit is drawn, which will get an induction by the spinning sun. The gravito-magnetic lines (B) are drawn and will interact with the orbiting Earth according to the Lorentz-like acceleration: m(v x B).

I take B as rotating like a standard corkscrew, when pointing in the direction of the wire's speed. For spinning objects, this gives the same starting direction as the angular momentum vector. If the sun rotates to the right, the angular momentum vector and the gravito-magnetic vector both starts at the North pole.

We must now do the test: either, the result is that the induction will point towards the equator (stable orbit), or away from the equator (unstable orbit).

In our solar system, the orbits are stable when they are prograde with the sun.

For both examples, the spinning sun and the parallel wires, applying (v x B) and not -(v x B) will result in more attraction.

Hence, parallel wires moving in the same direction will attract slightly more. Parallel wires moving in opposite directions will slightly attract less.

In the attached file “THE INTERACTION BETWEEN TWO UNIFORM LINEAR MOVING POINT MASSES”, a related issue is handled. It is shown that two particles attract less when they are moving in the same direction. The calculations are based on GEM and the conclusions are in accordance with SRT.

Antoine, I agree. It is the same correction as in electrodynamics, i.e. the magnetic correction to electric force meaning correction due to uniform motion. Since in this case the interaction path is prolonged the force will decrease, in both cases. In electric case, the repulsion will decrease, in gravitation case, the attraction will decrease. These are pure equivalent motional corrections. I have treated this case in my text book:

Electrodynamics- the field free approach (Springer 2015)

I don't quite understand Theirry's problem formulation. What is an infinite wire? It sure has infinite mass then? How could it be any physics in this example?

Dear Kjell, just think of a long, moving wire. I adapt the question in that sense, thank you for your remark. Anyway, an infinite wire would not give an infinite attraction per unit of mass-length.

Dear Antoine, thank you for your clarification. Your calculus is following the Maxwell approach of charges. Mathematically, it is sound.

The determination of the orientation of the B-field (positive or negative) is arbitrary and can be chosen by convention, because the field is in fact not directly observed. Then, the Lorentz-like force can be formulated, and it will result in a certain force direction, caused by induction of moving masses. This force can be observed.

Sooner or later, one must *verify* the theory with the reality, and a theory indeed has not the role to dictate the reality, but instead, to describe it.

So, when I follow your choice of force-direction, it means that a prograde orbit (this is a like-rotation) about a spinning large mass, will be *repelled* tangentially by the B-field, and become a retrograde orbiting mass (this is: orbiting in opposite direction as the spin of the central large mass). This is however not observed, all at the contrary.

However, when adapting your theory to *attraction of like-moving masses*, the correct observation will follow. In that case, whatever the choice of the B-field sign, and the Lorentz-force sign, provided that alltogether, that result in a supplementary attraction of like-moving masses.

An interesting fact is that two parallel spinning objects will show exactly the opposite result: like-spinning masses will attract less, and opposite-spinning masses will attract more. This is caused by the direction of the closest masses of the system: when the closest masses are in the same direction, the two objects' spins are opposite, and vice-versa.

Annexed, you will see the explanation: the first situation is observed, the other is the consequence by straightforward deduction.

Thierry,

Again [see SS post on 1-st page] – this thread would be much more simple and so more concretely discussable if instead of infinite/long parallel wires, a system of two point-like bodies having one-sign electric charges such that the repulsion is equal to the gravitational attraction be considered.

At that this system can move with any spatial speed and with any angle between the speed direction and the line between bodies, but in any case evidently the balance must hold.

Since the system is rather simple a many problems, that aren’t evident and ambiguous in this discussion will disappear.

When moving single charges are fully legitimate electric currents…

Cheers

Dear Sergey, thank you for your intervention. It seems to me that you are talking of an experimental setup, which will have some difficulties to be realized, and which will need a budget. Remember how tiny the forces are for gravity: a factor of (G v2/c2) is really *very* small for an experiment on Earth for which external influences must be excluded...

However, I suppose that the cosmos can be the most interesting lab ever, since the masses and the speeds are huge enough to show an effect on the long term at least, and in some cases, on the short term.

Would the sound back-calculation of the cosmic observations not be sufficient to determine if the theoretical case of parallel-moving wires would be more, or less attracting? Or even to decide the situation for your own experimental proposition?

Thierry,

“…. It seems to me that you are talking of an experimental setup, which will have some difficulties to be realized…”

-  ? that isn’t, of course so. All what I wrote above is seems as simplest set of bodies where electrodynamics and gravitodynamics can be applied; besides – here is no necessity to make some experiments, the answer is known with a very large probability – the balance at inertial motion must be hold independently on any the set’s parameters – the distance between bodies/charges, the set’s speed, angle, etc.

So as in a school - the problem’s answer is known, all what remains is to solve the problem to obtain the answer; thus discussing this problem could be more concrete and clear then “how galaxies are built”, “how infinite wires interact”, etc.

In the SS post on 1-st page I pointed a version of answer in 2008 paper, but I don’t insist on that this version is unique and completely correct; at that now I cannot study this problem [to make something serious else besides posting on the RG  at all] since the situation with the safety is rather bad and everyday I don’t know – will or not next day I be alive, when after the “revolution” 2014 neither police nor the Ukrainian specific service help…

Cheers

A few comments to what Thierry De Mees wrote: "The determination of the orientation of the B-field is arbitray and can be choosen by convention, because the field is in fact not directly observed. Then the Lorentz-like force can be formulated "

1. About the orientation of Bg.

The orientation of the gravitational field Eg of a point mass at rest (relative to an inertial reference frame O’) is pointing to the position of that mass (centripetal).

Because this is also the case for the electric field E of a negative point charge at rest (relative to O’), it is obvious to assume that the orientation of the gravitational induction Bg in the case of a point mass moving with velocity v (relative to an inertial reference frame O) is analogous to that of the magnetic induction B of a negative point charge moving with that velocity (relative to O). This implies that the direction of the field lines (and the orientation of Bg) of a moving point mass follows the same rule as the direction of the field lines (and the orientation of B) of a negative moving point charge.

2. About the gravito-magnetic force.

Two point masses anchored in an inertial reference frame O’ (attached file – fig 2) attract each other with a force F’. Let us now consider that situation from the view point of an observer in O.  Applying the force transformation equations on a situation in which a particle subject to a force F’  is at rest instantaneously in the O’ frame, we obtain the force F acting on the particle in the O frame: F = F’.sqrt(1-b²), with b = v/c.

Hence, the net attractive force between the moving particles (in O) is smaller than that between the particles at rest (in O’). According to GEM (and the theory of informatons) this is due to the gravito-magnetic force This force must be repulsive, what requiers for its mathematical expression: v x Bg. (and not Bg x v)

Dear Sergey, I am very sorry for the difficult situation you experience in Ukraine, due to the geopolitical "games" of both Russia and the West since Gorbachov's decision. I hope you will live in good health and in peace in the near future.

Your insights in your reference, section 3.8.2 are very valuable. Thank you for insisting on them. However, to the relativistic aspect, I think that a brilliant insight have been given by the late Prof. Oleg Jefimenko, who has proven that the Lorentz transformations straightforwardly follow from the retardation, by the speed of light, of the fields in Maxwellian 3-vector calculus.

This makes the need of a Lorentz 4-vector superfluous, and even harmful, since he also has proven that clock tick rate retardations vary with different values, depending from the exact clock construct and velocity direction.

Finally, I would be glad to see your concrete input as to the theoretical ways to determine whether the like-moving masses either attract more, or less.

Dear Antoine,

Thank you for your precious comments.

If I am not mistaken, it seems to me that the fourth Maxwell equation in electromagnetism has positive terms at both sides of the equation, while your fourth equation has a negative mass flux.

To be conform to Maxwell, the sign should be inversed, and probably that should result in the theoretical conclusion that parallel moving masses in the same direction attract more...

Thierry,

Indeed the fourth Maxwell equation for EM has positive signs at both sides. But because - as stated in my previous message -  a flow of mass (characterized by JG ) is analogue to a flow of negative electric charge (characterized by -JE), the role that is played by the term (mu-o.JE)   in EM is played by the term (- nu-o.JG ) in GEM. Something similar applies to the first equation : the role played by the term (rhoE/epsilon-0) is played by the term (-rhoG/eta-0) in GEM;

Hmmm,  Antoine, I will think about that... Thanks for specifying... 

Dear Thierry,

“…I am very sorry for the difficult situation you experience in Ukraine, due to the geopolitical "games" of both Russia and the West…”

 in the case in question there is no geopolitics, the case is very simple – a couple of practically unknown in “scientific society” humans made fundamental breakthrough in philosophy; and in clearing of a number of basic points in other sciences as well; at that some members of some community have thought, that in this case just they must be authors; at that some such members have a possibility to organize killing of real authors, which if are alive, impede to corresponding process. Since the “The Information as Absolute” conception and the physical model indeed are fundamental, here a big money  work, for Ukraine after February 2014 – very big money; that can buy any number of humans in the police and SBU [something as FBI in USA].

So some people who attempt to kill me make that without any obstacles, besides that I write time to time about this process, what limits, at least till now, possible methods and tools – is necessary the death be “natural”, what is now – aerosols that cause brain or heart hemorrhage. Till now  that turns out to be not efficient enough, though for me is necessary to be 24 hours in medical mask, etc.; I have a good experience at work with hazardous substances in my old work and 9 years experience with these people. So I’m alive till now, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is rather possible that in some time some chemists will create a sufficiently effective poison or some people apply more effective tools. E.g., seems [by symptomatics] a next new version  is applying now…

As to “…the Lorentz transformations straightforwardly follow from the retardation, by the speed of light, of the fields in Maxwellian 3-vector calculus. This makes the need of a Lorentz 4-vector superfluous…”

That isn’t completely so. As I know [though I’m not a professional here I was educated and worked as an experimentalist in nuclear physics] the electrodynamics was practically completely developed by Maxwell, Heaviside, Liénard, Wiechert, Lorentz, etc. yet in XIX; unique  thing that was strange – the equations weren’t invariant at Galileo transformations; just therefore Lorentz developed corresponding theory.

At that, though Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian manifold, where all/every particles always move with 4D speeds of light,

 since photons are created by purely spatial momentums, they move in the 3D space only with, so 3D  speed of light; and for electrodynamics manly is enough to consider these 3 dimensions.

But in the theory obligatorily the variable “t” is used, and you are forced to write   about “clock tick rate retardations”, when particles that constitute clocks were created by 4D momentums that had non-zero 4-th, i.e. “coordinate time” component; and so the particles and clocks as a whole are moving always along the 4-th, i.e. temporal axis; the clocks’ ticks just mean [and measure] this motion.

About Minkowski space – that would be too long here.

Cheers

Dear Sergey, I feel terrible by what you experience. Eliminating people for whatever the economical reason is abject. I have been informed about the corruption at all levels in some ex-USSR states, if not in all...

Hoping for the best, and that life may preserve you.

Concerning Lorentz, I would like that you would consider the following: it might be interesting to know that the Maxwell equations are factually invariant to Galileo transformations. The reason is that when one moves a magnetized rod in a solenoid, or one moves the solenoid around the magnetized rod, *different equations* will be used to describe the induced current in the solenoid. However, both descriptions will give exactly the same result. Hence, one can suppose the reference frames at wish, moving or not, provided that the relative motions are preserved.

It might be interesting to know that clocks can be fabricated exclusively by using vibrating or oscillating charges, and the clock tick rate at a distance can be analyzed with purely electric devices.

Oleg Jefimenko, a follower of Heaviside, deduces *different* clock tick retardation equations (by checking the incoming E-M fields in a remote reference frame), which depends from the clock construct and the speed direction.

Hence, since the equations of clock tick rate retardations differ from case to case, and sometimes correspond to the SRT result and sometimes not, *time* cannot be intrinsically included in the Lorentz transformations.

Remember that all the above was done in the frame of E-M, hence the retardation of clock tick rates can be fully performed by 3-vector calculus.

All the best.

Dear Thierry,

“…Maxwell equations are factually invariant to Galileo transformations. The reason is that when one moves a magnetized rod in a solenoid, or one moves the solenoid around the magnetized rod, *different equations* will be used to describe the induced current in the solenoid. However, both descriptions will give exactly the same result…”

- that possibly can be so in some cases; but, as you write above, Maxwell equations, if  Lorentz transformation are applied, give the same – and correct as you write,  result. Or, by another words application of the LT at least isn’t worse then application of Galileo transformations. But in many other cases the Lorentz transformations work well, when the Galileo’s don’t.

Besides, again, in Matter EM interactions play very small role – Matter consists of mostly particles [and so] bodies, systems of bodies, etc. that have rest masses, which, in contrast to photons that move  in  3D space only, move in the 4D Matter’s sub-spacetime with 4D speeds of light [having always 4D momentums P=mc  (bold means a vector) and energies E=Pc], which  have obligatorily non-zero temporal [“coordinate time”] component and so in this case application of the “4D” Lorentz transformations is principally obligatory.

That doesn’t change the fact that SRT interpretation of the LT, where it is postulated that the variables in the LT relate just to the spacetime and so Matter’s spacetime really transforms [time in every spacetime point is dilated, space contracted, etc.]; and further this “transformed” spacetime by using some magic forces really affects on material objects, for example – if a clock is placed in some point where “time is dilated”, then this dilating time forces poor clock to trick slower. That – and all other “relativistic effects” as well, is/are of course simply some fantasy; though be declared as “discovery of fundamental properties of the space and the time”…

Cheers

Dear Sergey,

In Maxwell, one can apply a mathematical, naive Lorentz-transformation, by inserting the LT values, and it gives again the Maxwell equations.

However, as Oleg Jefimenko pointed out, if a real, physical situation between reference frames is calculated, only the frame that is moving will result in a term that contains the induction of the moving frame, whereas in the case of the non-moving reference frame, that induction term is absent.

Hence, it is clear that the Maxwell equations, spites the mathematically naive trick, is physically not Lorentz invariant.

Since the clock rate changes are *not an intrinsic* time dilatation, and you agree with that, it is impossible that the Maxwell equations or mechanics' equations should be treated as Lorentz covariant.

Indeed, if you treat them as Lorentz covariant, the time will intrinsically variate.

Hence, the application of a 4-vector, which is exactly the same procedure as saying that the LT are Lorentz covariant, is invalid.

The SRT interpretation is indeed wrong, because the perception of reference frames by the use of light, as Einstein did, can indeed not alter the intricsic properties of matter.

What however is possible, is that when measuring an electromagentic event at a distance in another reference frame, one detects deformations of the transmitted fields.

This however doesn't alter the matter either, except if one can assume that matter is "trapped light". In that case, and by using the appropriate calculus, one can deduct which matter variations (if any) occur and what are the consequences for the perception of these altered masses.

My question is related to this, by attempting to define when moving masses are attracting more, and when less.

Thierry,

Sorry, but I cannot add to my posts above something else to my posts above; and can only repeat that besides electrodynamics in Matter there are many physical objects, processes,  etc. that are essentially 4D, and where Lorentz transformations are important. All what is necessary at that, though, is to know - when they are adequate to the reality and when aren’t, and, of course

 to understand that letters “x [y,z]” and “t [ct]” in the transformations aren’t some just “own” spacetime points, where mighty Matter’s spacetime govern, using some magic forces, material objects, i.e. – slows clocks’ tick rates if clocks are in points where “time is dilated”, “contracts” bodies’ lengths if “space is contracted”, etc.

– as  these fantasies are postulated in the SR as real “relativistic effects”;

but these letters are simply 4D Euclidian coordinates of moving material objects’ points in 4D sub-spacetime of the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime.

Besides – the LT work completely only in rigidly interacting systems of bodies, including, of course, in systems of particles that interact strongly enough to form rigid bodies, i.e. in the bodies; if a system of objects is free the LT don’t work.

Correspondingly Minkowski formalism, which, if one takes no attention  on fantastic SR postulate that Minkowski 4D space is the real Matter’s spacetime, is nothing more then a rather convenient re-formulation of the Lorentz transformation, this formalism is applicable well in the same situations, when  the transformations are adequate to the reality – and such situations exist usually in most real physical problems.

Cheers

I have problems with computer

Dear Sergey,

So, we both agree that time tick rates are physically not intrinsic time delays of matter (or space).

However, we definitely don't agree upon what is the physical explanation of the time component in the Lorentz transformations, neither do we agree upon the use, either or not, of the Lorentz transformations in Maxwell's equations.

Anyway, our agreement about the first issue allows us to get forward with the question in which case moving masses are attracting more, and in which case less.

Dear Thierry,

“…we both agree that time tick rates are…”

-  time cannot have principally any own inherent “tick rate”, it has such a thing only in Newton’s definition of the time [“Time flows”] and in the SRT, where time not only “ticks”, but at that by some magic way forces all clocks to tick as it ticks. As well as equally space hasn’t  own inherent “steps”;  relating to the space Newton was correct in his definition, when in the SRT again the space is some mighty essence that can be, nonetheless, deformed by some magic “reference frames” and further be “contracted”, “curved”, etc. “contracts” or “spreads” lengths of everything inside.

Again,  only material objects indeed, because of the energy conservation law

[which works because of Matter is an informational [logical] system that operates basing on reversible logical chains/ algorithms]

always uninterruptedly change their internal states and spatial positions, i.e.  move with 4D speeds of light in the 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, when changing of the internal states is  just objects’ motion along 4-th, i.e. “coordinate time” axis; so clocks always show the coordinate time.

Correspondingly after some material impact on an object it changes, because of the constancy of the speeds’ absolute values,  its 4D direction of motion, including  at that changing speed in the coord-time. Thus, for example when clocks, particles and twins move in the 3D space with some speed speed, then clocks slow tick rate, unstable particles increase half-life, twin-traveler slows aging, etc. in the gamma factor times – just therefore  that is in the Lorentz transformations.

Again – if you indeed want to know what happen in Matter’s kinematics and dynamics -  read at least https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Dear Sergey,

Of course, I meant *clock* rates, as you could deduce from the text.

I agree with you that when the time is measured by the very light signals between reference frames (using then light as "clock"), and by that, accounting for "local time measurement", indeed the Lorentz equations are applicable under probably extended conditions.

However, if time is measured by a steady clock of *any* construct (stationary reference frame), consequently *any, complicated* electromagnetic- or gravity proces can be described correctly between references frames, by accounting for the retardation of the fields in the Maxwell equations.

Inversely, the clock rate of a moving clock as reference can be converted to clock rate of the stationary reference frame.

That is a bit more complicated maths, but Jefimenko made a coherent and complete extension of Maxwell's theory and generalized the Lorentz equations for any possible clock construct.

It follows that the Lorentz-like value of clock rate delays will vary with the very clock construct and the velocity direction wrt that construct, and it is not always the same factor as sqrt(1-v2/c2)^-1.

Regarding the attraction or repel of parallelly moving masses (like direction or opposite direction), I found the following article "Astronomers Baffled by Discovery of Rare Quasar Quartet".

They were produced in the same location of a nebula.

If like-moving masses attract more and opposite-moving masses attract less, then we can get a natural grouping of like-moving gas particles as well, don't we?

Hence, if the nebula has a global angular momentum that is random, maybe zero at the start, one can get grouping at one sine in one direction, and grouping at another place in another direction. This could create spontaneous rotation. So, duets or triplets or quartets of rotating gasses.

One can expect that the spin directions of the quasars is different, not alike, because the global angular momentum of the nebula is random.

Any comments?

http://www.keckobservatory.org/recent/entry/astronomers_baffled_by_discovery_of_rare_quasar_quartet