Dear Thierry,

The equations of relativistic Larmor components 4.96, 4.97 and 4.98 are wrong. This was the main criticism made to the Rutherford atomic model that Bohr solved make a postulate of no radiation. Later it was shown by Quantum Mechanics simple calculations that the mean radiation produced by the accelerated electrons in the orbitals is zero. Thus classical electrodynamics here fails.

Dear Daniel,

Since the calculus in the MIT paper is accounting for a classical approach, and that the precise structure of the atom and the orbits isn't entirely known, I don't contest that a specific calculus of classical atom models may fail.

However, what cannot fail, is the principle for rectilinearly moving charges, that the retardation of the fields will result in a strong reduction of the electric field in the direction of motion and a strong increase of the electric field, perpendicularly to the motion.

The consequence is the strong induced magnetic field and the strong compressing Lorentz force, and the impossibility to further accelerate the particle by electromagnetic fields.

If the precise charge structure of the accelerated particles would be known, one could probably get a more precise calculus.

However, the electromagnetic principle of the Liénard-Wiechert (or Jefimenko retardation of fields) is a real effect, even at the level of particles.

Dear Thierry,

Since the calculus in the MIT paper is accounting for a classical approach, and that the precise structure of the atom and the orbits isn't entirely known, I don't contest that a specific calculus of classical atom models may fail.

The problem is that the electric charges are moving accelaretedly in the atom, although we don't know their trajectories, and also they would need to radiate using the Jefimenko's equation (with currents and density of chage besides potentials) or by the Lienard-Wiechert potentials.

By the way in your sentance:

the principle for rectilinearly moving charges, that the retardation of the fields will result in a strong reduction of the electric field in the direction of motion and a strong increase of the electric field, perpendicularly to the motion.

You had to add accelerated in

"rectilinearly" accelerelerated moving charges

and perhaps to delete the rectilinear because this constraint is not necessary for radiation or production of photons.

Dear Daniel,

It is important to notice that neither the Lienard-Wichert potential nor Jefimenko's retardation equation require an accelerated or a non- rectilinear path.

The retardation of the fields is always valid.

It replaces the imitation by the interpretation of special relativity, which is only treating mutual inertial reference frames by using light signals.

In electromagentism, the electromagentic fields carry much more information, and result in more complex transformation equations than with the sole Lorentz factor.

Moreover, the interpretation of a modification of the parameters of the very objects in the inertial reference frames is false, and shown by deBroglie, in agreement with Einstein.

Dear Thierry,

You are right that the potentials by themself don't need the acceleration, but they are not the physical quantities in Classical Electrodynamics (for instance they are not gauge invariant). The important is that they need to be introduced in Maxwell equations and therefore the radiation fields appears besides the near ones.

Dear Daniel,

"You are right that the potentials by themself don't need the acceleration, but they are not the physical quantities in Classical Electrodynamics (for instance they are not gauge invariant)."

That is totally irrelevant, because then, you illicitely try to supplant special relaticity to electrodynamics.

It are on the contrary the retarded fields of which the effect are only in appearance imitated by the equations of special relativity.

The gauge invariance is false, since the induction of the fields only occur when the inertail reference field is in fact moving. If it is not moving, there is no magnetic field produced, and no induction can occur.

"The important is that they need to be introduced in Maxwell equations and therefore the radiation fields appears besides the near ones."

No, of course not! The special relaticity is only coping with the light signals between reference frames, not with electromagnetic fields, which include induction.

More specifically, it can be shown, as Jefimenko did, that the transformation equations of electromagentic harmonic devices between inertail reference frames comply sometimes with the equations of special relativity, but certainly not always. In many cases, the results of the receiving inertial reference frame are very different.

Instead of the Lorenz factor (1-v²/c²)^(-1/2), results such as (1-v²/c²)^(-3/2) or (1-v²/c²)^(-5/4) were found.

Dear Thierry,

The gauge invariance is false, since the induction of the fields only occur when the inertail reference field is in fact moving. If it is not moving, there is no magnetic field produced, and no induction can occur.

The potentials always are gauge dependent by definition and without any relation with the induction or so on! I think that you need to pass a course of electrodynamics, but look for instance the chapter 6 of the Jackson.

On the other hand, let me to say that electrodynamics has retarded solutions but also advanced solutions. Do you know what is the reason of you only use the retarded solutions? (please don't say stupid concepts as cousality).

In any case, my advice is that you study Maxwell electrodynamics previously to only speak of Jefimenko's one. The danger is that you don't understand any of them.

Dear Daniel,

It is a joy for me to discover that the only thing that is left for you is to insult me, but no single scientific argument is left.

The great Louis de Broglie understood what the limitations of SRT are, and he wrote it down in his 1937 book “La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta”: He wrote :

"There is, however, one essential difference between Lorentz-Fitzgerald's contraction and that which, according to Einstein, results from the transformation of Lorentz: the first, indeed, was supposed to be a real contraction provoked by the absolute movement of the body. in the ether, while the second is an apparent contraction relative to the second observer: it derives solely from the way in which the various observers measure their distances and durations, and from the Lorentz transformation, which mathematically expresses the relationship between the measurements. Thus, the apparent contraction of the lengths is complemented by the apparent slowing down of the clocks."

He continued:

"In particular, we can perfectly justify the paradoxical fact that the contraction of the rules and the slowing down of the clocks are reciprocal appearances, that is to say that if two observers in uniform relative motion are each equipped with a rule and a clock, the two rulers and the two clocks being of identical construction, each of the observers finds that the rule of the other is shorter than his own, and that the clock of the other retires on his own. Surprising as this reproach may seem at first sight, it is easy to explain when one examines the theory carefully."

Hence, deBroglie clearly speaks of a fictive result of SRT, limited to the deformation of the measurement signals, in accordance with Einstein's thoughts.

Since deBroglie found that each inertial reference frame (IRF) can mutually consider that the other inertial reference frame is shorter, and consequently, according to SRT, have a shorter time and larger mass, there is a problem in the case of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and there is no problem in the case of the Lorentz contraction.

Hence, it are only the light signals of communications that Einstein used in his thought experiment, that give this impression of length contraction, whereas there isn't any.

The pure retardation of signals, either light signals or electromagnetic fields, will result in either SRT of the signals themselves (not the very objects in the IRFs) or in transformations of transmission signals of the electromagnetic fields.

However, in electromagnetism, assuming that the IRFs are electromagnetic devices of emission and detection, there exist two fields, which can give very different results, depending from the emission pattern of the first IRF.

In a first case, if the first IRF is moving and the second is standing still, one gets a transmitted magnetic field from the first one, which however cannot act, because the second reference frame is not moving.

In a second case, if the first IRF is standing still and the second is moving, there is no magnetic field transmitted, but the second IRF will discover an increasing or decreasing electric field, which also result in induction.

However, the transmitted fields of transformation are different in both cases! It is only when the second IRF discovers the growing electric field, that the second IRF can be induced.

This tells three things:

1) the final result in electromagnetism remains the same, as we know;

2) the transmitted fields are however different in every case;

3) the definition of velocity is not “at wish”.

From then on, we can wonder if the definition of an aether is appropriate, which would maybe clarify that, and then, we get the following issues:

1) how should the Michelson & Morley null experiment be interpreted?

2) How can be interpreted that the speed of light is constant in non-local cases?

The Liénard-Wiechert equations can of course be written as Lorentz invariant, such as the Jefimenko retardation fields can, but that is an inadmissible injection.

Why? As deBroglie has shown: there is no physical reality with respect to the very objects of the IRFs when one uses light as signal between IRF's. No change of lenght, time or mass; However, with charges, there are indeed fields and forces that come into action between them.

With respect to the alleged SRT “proofs” of Hafele and Keating, CERN and the muons with relativistic speeds, it is well known that:

Hafele and Keating

1) they used fraud in order to get to the required results: one of the four clocks was showing totally different results, opposite to what was expected. Nevertheless, they used these data in order to get the results.

2) Atomic clocks are in the first place electromagnetic devices. So, it might be a proof for electromagnetism in the first place, not for SRT.

CERN

The fast velocity of charges results in retarded fields that that strongly reduce the longitudinal emission of electric fields, and increase that of the perpendicular ones. It becomes impossible to further accelerate these charges by means of electromagnetic fields.

Muons

Muons at relativistic speed get the effect as above, causing a strong induced magnetic field at the charge's surface. That results in a strong compression Lorentz force, which delays the decay.

Dear Thierry,

Sorry bu it seems that you don't follow my posts. I have put you a concrete question for giving you one idea of what we were spoking about. Jefimenko and you seem to forget that electrodynamics has also an advanced potential as solution. Where is it? How do you be allowed to forget in the production of radiation? The only difference is the direction of time for one given observer.

Dear Daniel,

I am perfectly following your posts.

However, someone who pretends that there would be a physical evidence of advanced potentials, someone who talks of talks of "stupid concepts as causality", and pretends that there physically exists an inverse direction of time, where effect precedes cause, indeed enters in pseudophysics or anti-physics.

So, he needs quite a bit of explanations, which should settle the difference between science and anti-science, especially in the case of SRT and E-M.

This being said, it is of course so that "advanced potentials" are non physical. They are the mathematical inverse of the retarded potential, as obtained by the virtual inversion of time.

Dear Thierry,

My advice is that you need to read and study classical electromagnetism before entering in mixing common sense, logic with physics. The advanced potentials were used for many physicists and even today are in certain parts of electrodynamics.

Feynman and his advisor John Wheeler had developed a theory of direct interaction (dispensing with classical fields) by using half advanced and half retarded potentials, similar to the theory developed by Dirac in 1938. Feynman’s autobiographical book “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman” includes a chapter entitled “Monster Minds”, in which he recalls his alarm upon learning, shortly before the talk, that the attendees would include Henry Norris Russell, John von Neumann, Wolfgang Pauli and Albert Einstein. Just as the talk was about to get started, Feynman was writing some equations on the blackboard, and Einstein walked in and said “Hello, I’m coming to your seminar, but first, where is the tea?” At this time, Feynman wasn’t aware of Einstein’s debate with Ritz back in 1909 on the subject to advanced and retarded potentials. It’s interesting that some of the ideas of Feynman’s talk that day, such as the need for a complete absorber in the future, were already familiar to Einstein. After the talk was over, Pauli raised some objection to the theory, and asked if Einstein agreed. “No”, Einstein replied, “I find only that it would be very difficult to make a corresponding theory for gravitational interaction”.

Notice that there are difficulties as the Lorentz-Dirac equation, developed by Dirac in 1938, which leads to the conclusion that if an electric is subjected to a force, it must begin to accelerate just prior to the application of the force.

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for sharing littles stories. However, all what it tells is that SRT made a mess of physics.

By using the retarded potentials, without any additional injection of Lorentz invariance, one explains perfectly all the E-M events in the macroscopic world.

Using gravity as gravitomagnetism, the final outcome of what gravity really is (not from GRT) as proven by the Gravity Probe B experiment, without the injection of Lorentz invariance, does exactly the same: it allows the description of gravity entirely.

Dear Thierry,

Let me to repeat you my advice. Study the usual electromagnetism and gravitation, after that you can go to Jefimenko or gravitomagnetism.

With my best wishes, Daniel.

Dear Daniel,

You have no scientific answer whatsoever to the fact that there is not the least of a physical proof that light signals between inertial reference frames would, as Einstein has performed it by a thought experiment, alter anything else than these light signals themselves.

Hence, SRT can neither alter electromagnetism nor gravitomagnetism.

That study suffices to me.

Dear all,

A more detailed study can be found here:

"Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?"

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7257

Dear all,

The conclusion seems to be that SRT effects, which are described as the observations between inertial reference frames with the help of light beams as communication, have not the power nor produces the energy to alter physical properties inside objects, such as time, mass, and lenght.

Hence, SRT must be seen as intended, and as explicitely mentioned by Louis de Broglie in his excellent 1937 book “La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta” : SRT only shown fictive affects due to observation of inertial frames, by the communication of light beams.

Hi Thierry!

I'm not entirely happy with MIT's use of the fieldline diagram in fig 4.5.

If we're talking about the apparent, one-way-measured, seen geometry of a moving charge, the correct description is not that it is seen to be symmetrically Lorentz-contracted, giving a flattened ellipsoid ... the situation with special relativity is rather that the motion of the charge makes its geometry asymmetrical wrt the motion axis.

If we mark out the charge's apparent geometry by drawing equal-angle divisions on its stationary minkowski lightcone, then the result of tilting that lightcone (when the charge moves) is that the distribution of lines becomes asymmetrical on the motion axis, and a cross-section through the cone in the new observer's spatial plane now gives an elongated ellipse, with the rays/fieldlines apparently originating not from the centre but from one of the foci.

For a given velocity (expressed as the tilt angle that we use to take the conic section through the lightcone), the resulting ellipse wavefront diagram gives the correct SR aberration angle for every individual ray, and the proportional change in length of each ray gives the SR relativistic Doppler wavelength-change prediction for each ray.

It's a very very pretty piece of geometry that gives the essentials of special relativity in a single diagram.

see, eg, Moreau, Am.J.Phys 1994, Article Wave front relativity

The "function" of Lorentz contraction in that context is then to compact the x-axis-elongated ellipse that results from cutting the lightcone back into its original circular outline.

----

I haven't gone through the guts of the MIT chapter, so I suppose there might be some abstract mathematical sense in which the diagram is appropriate, perhaps by breaking the actual effect into two artificial components, one of which is shown in fig 4.5 ... but normally when you see this diagram, it means that someone's been mistaught SR.

• The "symmetrically squished" diagram appears in Gamow's popular "Mr Tomkins" books ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins ), but modern editions have a foreword by Penrose warning that the drawings and descriptions are incorrect.
• The faulty Gamow characterisation also appeared in Jacob Bronowski's high-profile 1973 "Ascent of Man" tv series ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man ), "explaining" SR's visual predictions, again wrongly ... for the modern DVD release, they seem to have had to spend money remastering the computer graphics to correct the mistake.

This issue was supposedly put to rest in the 1960s in a series of papers by Terrell, Boas, Penrose, etc., but I found that in the 1990s that most relativity people I met were still using the Gamow mischaracterisation, and didn't realise that it wasn't literally correct.

As a sanity-test consider the apparent geometrical distortion on a moving ball, with points marked on it to represent fieldlines. Under SR, it does NOT show a higher fieldline density to the sides and identical densities front-back ... instead it shows a redistribution of geometry aligned with its direction of motion (aberration of angles, not present in fig 4.5).

I suppose that you could combine fig 4.5 with a second effect to take into account the missing signal-propagation effects and end up with the correct final answer (I expect that MIT probably will be giving the correct final answers in spite of the unfortunate "explanatory" diagram), but IMO, fig 4.5 is misleading and risks propagating the Gamow mistake further.

IMO, rather than use a Gamow-style contracted diagram and solve its problems with further math, it's better to use a more correct diagram in the first place.

BTW, regarding Gamow and his mistake wrt SR, there's an interesting conspiracy theory about the episode.

Gamow's mistake doesn't seem to have been publicly documented until the late 1950s, when an undergraduate called James Terrell kept submitting a paper on the subject to major journals until one of them finally had to publish it.

The conspiracy theory says that some people knew about the mistake before this (credible, since theoretical physicists aren't stupid people), but deliberately chose not to mention the error in public out of professional etiquette – you don't mention your colleague's mistakes, on the understanding that if you then make an embarrassing mistake, people will pay you the same courtesy, and let you save face. Quid pro quo.

However (says the conspiracy theory) unhappiness in the community about being expected to keep quiet (while Gamow enjoyed financial success from his books) led to Gamow being "penalised" by making sure that any suggestions for his being awarded a Nobel Prize for other work then got vetoed.

That just left Terrell as a loose end. It took Terrell a few years to finally get his paper accepted, and while it was awaiting publication, Penrose knocked out a similar paper and passed it to a little local mathematical society for speedy publication in their their newsletter, beat Terrell into print, and started being given credit for having discovered the "new" effect. This led to Terrell feeling that the community had ganged up on him and found a sneaky way to award the credit to "one of their own" rather than him. This was especially galling for Terrell, as thanks to peer review being anonymous, he had no idea whether Penrose had been or known one of the anonymous reviewers who'd previously rejected his paper.

Supporters of Terrell who felt that he'd been treated unfairly rallied round and campaigned for Terrell to have been given due credit (since he'd submitted first), but apparently the episode left such a sour taste in Terrell's mouth that he left physics and took up another career.

Dear Eric,

Thank you for your interesting comments!

Concerning the alleged Lorentz-contraction, I have a remark. Einstein didn't show any Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction by his thought experiment, only an apparent Lorentz-contraction when an inertial reference frame (IRF) is observed by another IRF through the use of light. It has led to the longitudinal and transverse apparent masses, as observed (according to the thought experiment) from a distance.

So, with light, there are no real changes in the very objects of the IRF's themselves, it is only optical deformation.

With charges, it is not about the use of light. It is about force fields. Light has no real power, whereas fields have.

So, with fields, not only a real change of the environment is possible, there are also inductions, which really occur when charges are moving.

So, the MIT paper has mixed two aspects: the real force fields, retarded at a distance becasue of the limited speed of propagation, and the Lorentz-factor as an optical deformation.

It is clear that there doesn't happen any observation by light, and that the Lorentz-factor as an optical deformation is non-existent.

There only remains the force fields, which are retarded.

Now we come to your suggestion of an elongated ellipse instead of a symmetric field distribution.

You should consider that Heaviside's equation of the retarded fields, see Eq.(A) and (B) p.495 at https://archive.org/details/electricalpapers02heavrich

express the field for the present position of a charge.

In order to understand this visually, one can consider that a field (velocity "c") that goes in the direction of the future position of the charge (velocity "v"), will get 'compacted' at the front side (location of the field is c-v based), and a field (velocity "c") that goes in the direction of the past position of the charge (velocity "v"), will get 'diluted' at the rear side, but much farther away (location of the field is c+v based).

However, the result for the present position of the charge is symmetrical, as in MIT's drawing.

For your information, the Heaviside's first book on that subject is here:

see https://archive.org/details/electricalpapers01heavuoft

For the little story of conspiration: as you know, the best way to continue conspiring is to massively condemn and ridicule conspiration, and call them conspiration theories. I think that there is a direct dependence between the level of conspiration and the level of condemnation of it. You see it with what happens in the US between the Mainstream Media and Trump.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hi Thierry! It sounds like you'd be interested in the Moreau paper. I also did a paper on this at about the same time, but Moreau's has the advantage of being certified as correct by peer review. Mine was more general, but Moreau made the direct link between the SR version and slices through the Minkowski lightcone ... if you take a spreading circular wavefront with equal-angle rays or fieldlines, and you distort the ray-wavelengths and angles according to special relativity's physical predictions, you get an elongated ellipse with the source at one focus ... if you generate the different ellipses for multiple observers with different states of motion, and intersect them, you end up reconstructing the Minkowski light-cone.

By rights I think the "relativistic ellipse" diagram should have become the default teaching tool for special relativity ... it's reasonably simple and easy to understand.

The reason I think it wasn't embraced is because it's too powerful a tool ... it lets one derive graphical results for potential relativistic theories other than special relativity, and suggests that SR might be an oversimplified special case, and that other possibilities may be available.

In the SR version of the diagram, the geometry is entirely "flat" ... but if the signal source has an inertial/gravitational field, and the gravitational fieldlines are aberrated by the same angles as the rest of the geometry, then a moving gravitational source has an associated gravitomagnetic field, which then means that we're talking about relativity theory based on gravitomagnetic principles and intrinsically curved spacetime rather than on SR's flat spacetime.

Thierry: " In order to understand this visually, one can consider that a field (velocity "c") that goes in the direction of the future position of the charge (velocity "v"), will get 'compacted' at the front side (location of the field is c-v based), and a field (velocity "c") that goes in the direction of the past position of the charge (velocity "v"), will get 'diluted' at the rear side, but much farther away (location of the field is c+v based). "

Yep, that "displaced source" behaviour also shows up in the relativistic ellipse. At one end of the ellipse, the source is closer but its fieldlines are splayed further apart, and at the other the source is further away but its fieldlines are separated by smaller angles.

==General behaviour==

Visually, the general law for just about any theory with finite c is that an approaching body is always seen to be increased in length and a receding body is always seen to be compacted in length, due to the timelag differential across the body and the fact that the body moves while its various signals are in flight.

• If a train is 1km long, and moves directly away from us as we stand by the track, timelags mean that the engine will be seen to be less than one km away at the moment that the caboose passes by us: a photograph will show the train occupying less than 1km of track.
• If the train approaches us, then at the moment that the front of the engine reaches us, the rear will be seen to have an out-of-date timelagged position further back along the track than its "true" position, and a photo will show the train occupying more than 1km of track.

==Exact relationships==

When we do the calculations, it turns out that the apparent propagation-based length-change is always exactly identical to the apparent propagation-based frequency-change:

The visible frequency change ratio and the visible length-change ratio are identical.

==Interpretations==

The SR description [3] is redder and shorter than [1] by gamma, so if we believe that SR is physically correct, and assume that the SoL is fixed in our frame, then we will interpret our SR-compatible photographs as showing an additional Lorentz redshift and length-contraction in addition to the expected propagation effect.

But the prediction [2] is in turn redder and shorter then SR, by an further Lorentz factor – it "overshoots" special relativity by a further gamma.

So if we assume that SR is correct, but that the SoL happens to be globally fixed wrt our emitter's frame, we have to have some way of explaining why our SR photograph is now bluer and longer than the (revised) expected propagation effect ... and we do this by saying that in the second interpretation, it is our own reference rods and clocks that are "moving" wrt the new assumed preferred frame for light, and therefore contracted and slowed, so that we see things to be "bluer and longer" than normal.

This brings the predictions of [2] back into line with SR

But since these two descriptions produce identical physics, photographs obeying SR can be interpreted as "really" showing either contractions or elongations, depending on our initial belief about the "real" global frame for the propagation of light. Since the choice of frame has no physical consequences, the associated Lorentz contraction or elongation is similarly interpretative.

If the situation is "simple" (constant-velocity-straight-line inertial motion, etc.), Lorentz contraction and time dilation under SR cannot be distinguished on principle from purely propagation-based effects.

If there was some way to isolate these effects as "real", then we could isolate which frame the speed of light was "really" fixed in, breaking the principle of relativity and SR. If the validity of SR depends on our not being able to establish a "correct" frame for the propagation of light, then it also depends on our being unable to tell whether the length of a body with relative motion to us is "really" contracted, elongated, or unchanged.

Hi Eric,

Thank you for your extended explanation.

There is a difference between what you consider correct and what Heaviside considers as being correct.

In addition of my former explanation, I should have added the following.

Consider emanating light beams from a moving source, and name each beam wavecycle with its departure coordinates including its departure time.

Then consider the same light beams after some time in space. You will see an ellipse of the coordinate points that started at the same time.

That is not what it is about with fields.

With fields, one doesn't care about the identification of the "fieldons" because it doesn't describe particular local situations of an uniformly diverging field.

Hence, what counts is only the resulting field that appears at each point in space, *without* taking into account the time of departure of the "fieldons".

When the electric field is calculated that way, in relation to the actual position of the particle, one gets the MIT drawing and Heaviside's results, which is totally symmetric.

Kind regards,

Thierry De Mees

Well, I'm willing to accept that the MIT drawing represents an isolated //component// of the total effect ... but it can't represent the complete behaviour, because approaching and receding fields shouldn't look the same.

In gravitomagnetism, there's a velocity component: if you hover above the equator of a spinning star, the approaching and receding sides don't just show different Doppler behaviours, they show different distortions and different field-attractions.

The receding edge of the spinning star pulls on you more strongly than the approaching edge, which is why the field of a spinning star tends to drag matter and light around with it (with the dragging effect being 100% for a black hole horizon). A rotating star shows an apparent gravitational centre-of-mass offset towards the receding side, and gravitomagnetic lensing makes the star's visible position appear optically offset. If you surround a spinning star with "fixed" equatorial observers, and ask all of them to point to the star's "real" position, they'll point in different directions, deflected towards whichever side recedes from them (with the conflicting directions all presumably intersecting different points on the kerr black hole's calculated ring-singularity)

In special relativity, we also have the result that the geometrical distortion of a moving body has to correspond to the geometrical distortion given by intersecting a Minkowski light-cone with the tilted plane of simultaneity of the different observer for whom the source is moving. If the angles of the rest of the object's geometry are abberated by relative motion, it would be extremely strange if the object's fieldlines decided to distort with motion according to a different set of rules. We would lose the concept of a moving object having an agreed "apparent" geometry, if different aspects of the moving object distorted in different ways.

Hi Eric, we seem to start to agree that there is a difference between the 'lightcycles' (wrongly named 'photons') leaving from a moving particle, with its coordinates that include space coordinates and ignition time on the one hand, and 'anonymous' field units departing from a moving particle on the other hand.

In order to better visualize the resulting field, one can draw a short line departing at 45° ahead the particle and one at 45° at its rear. After that the particle moved, one can draw another set. After the next displacement, it is clear that the lines ahead are closer to the actual position of the particle, and the ones at the rear are 'diluted'. It becomes clear when one re-measures the resulting angles between the actual position and the drawn short lines: the angle at the front becomes much larger and the one at the rear much smaller. That doesn't express an ellipse, because we decided that the field 'units' are anonymous. It only shows that the situation ahead goes from 45° to, say, 60°, and at the rear, from 45° to, say 30°. Hence, it shows the final result at 60° ahead and 30° at the rear only. However, other 'units' are present everywhere and the example shows that the transverse part is larger and the longitudinal part is smaller, just as in the MIT drawing.

Now, let's look at classical Heaviside-compliant gravitomagnetism. The spinning star is a dipole, and hovering above the equator is like moving horizontally in an almost perfectly vertical Bg field. The Lorentz-like force points in opposite directions if you hover in opposite directions.

Let's now look at the spinning star itself. A wrong interpretation is to suppose that the gravitation component g (in opposition to the 'gyrotation' component Bg, the magnetic-like component) is stronger at the front side than at the rear side. No, the offset is precisely described by the magnetic-like, gyrotation part. The gravitational part is independent from motion, and Doppler effects are not relevant for fields, only the magnetic part is.

Also the bending of light is precisely described by the gyrotational part, due to the motion of light only, as explained in my paper:

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

And indeed, the circular bending of light as about black holes reflects that too.

That is interesting to know, since alleged dark matter is ascribed in galaxy clusters, where mass is not seen.

Let's now look at Minkowski, which is the same as SRT in fact, but extended. We know that it shows the optical observation and distortion of an object in an inertial reference field, seen from a distance. SRT and Minkowski should be used to reconstruct the object parameters out of the observation, just as one could ascribe three adjacent parallelograms as representing a cube.

But the three parallelograms have no real physical meaning. Their deformations have no physical meaning. So don't have the results of SRT and Minkowski by themselves.

You wrote: “it would be extremely strange if the object's fieldlines decided to distort with motion according to a different set of rules”. Maybe it is possible to express Maxwell's equations in terms of Doppler effects upon electric and gravity fields, due to motion. This is more like Weber's electromagnetism then. This would enhance the physical understanding of the phenomenon, but however not change the final effects.

Best regards,

Thierry

Hi Eric, my last post cannot be edited. I add the link of the paper here:

Preprint The calculation of the bending of star light grazing the sun

Regards.