No!  The four vector equations of gravito-electromagnetism are an approximation to the ten field equations of general relativity that are valid if (1) fields are weak and (2) velocities are slow. So they can no more be an "alternative" to GR than Galilean mechanics is an alternative to SR. Also, it is important to note that while the GEM equations are "analogous" to Maxwell's equations, they are not identical. There are differences of units (of course); the GEM equations deal in "mass currents" rather than electrical ones, and the GEM equivalent of the magnetic field has units of spin (rad/s) rather than Teslas (this makes sense if you think about it). There are differences of sign (gravity is always attractive) and important numerical differences reflecting the fact that gravity is associated with a spin-2 field rather than the spin-1 field of electromagnetism. There are many good references on this topic. One especially clear and succinct one was written by Kip Thorne in a 1988 book titled Near Zero (edited by Fairbank, Michelson and Everitt); it is available from the Gravity Probe B website at http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/nz-Thorne_101.pdf.

Antoine, it turns out it is easy to explain precession.  Any theory that has time dilation will do it.  And any universal gravity must invariably lead to time dilation.  However, it is more difficult to get light bending and Shapiro delay, which require spatial curvature.  I.e. the radial coordinate velocity of light, confirmed in many tests as for example bouncing radar off of Venus when it is in opposition, is reduced by the square of the time dilation factor.  In other words, twice as much as explained by time dilation alone.

For an example of calculating the precession using only a universally acting gravity, which would be true of any number of alternatives to GR, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264419808_Hamiltonian_analysis_using_time_dilation

For a simplified derivation of space-time curvature, the only one I know of that is correct, i.e. goes beyond equivalence and special relativity and into specific field assumptions, see the paper linked below.

Robert, thanks for your answer.  I will need some time to go through the referred papers.  I agree with you that the explanation of light bending by GEM  is not immediately obvious.  However, I wonder if it is not possible to calculate the correct path of a photon passing near a solid rotating body (the sun) taking into account the accelating effect in radial direction of Bg  toghether with that of Eg.

Antoine, viewing the light trajectory in Euclidean space, it is pushed away from the attractor while it is approaching, and held there longer as it leaves, allowing more time for light to "go around."  I have not yet done a complete ray calculation but plan to do this and publish somewhere.  It is simpler if you will focus on Shapiro delay first.  If you get the double slowing radially, you will have spatial distortion by implication.

To Remi Cornwall. It is not relevant to speak of "only a linear theory". The proof that gravitomagnetism is the correct theory is given by the results of the Gravity Probe B experiment. Also the double bending of light and Mercury's perihelion advance are proven by it, although it doesn't got time dilatation.

Unfortunately, the general relativity theory didn't explain any phenomenon in the cosmos, from the disk galaxies to the partially non-exploding of fast spinning stars, and the alleged dark matter isue. But gravitomagnetism explain all of it.

Actually, all universal action theories imply time dilation.  The argument is summarized in the first link below, but generally is well known.

Less well known, because of mistakes in interpretation in early papers on the subject, spatial curvature is also implied by universal action theories.  There is yet to be accepted a general argument on this, though I have tried to give a better one in the 2nd link below.  It is very simple if one allows a reasonable (and empirically true) assumption, as per 3rd link below.

Given these new realities, demonstrating precession, time dilation, frame dragging, gravitational waves, and even Shapiro delay no longer differentiate gravitational theories.  Only measurements from near the supposed event horizon of each particular theory (in this they differ) can do so ... almost like in the movie Interstellar.  Except of course we don't actually need measurements from inside the horizon.

Equivalence between gravitational field and electromagnetic field is fascinating but it has many problems and same promoters talked  on a formal and non-substantial analogy. Reasons for which that analogy cannot subsist are:

1. Gravitational field is based on the physical concept of mass. Besides gravitational field is generally static and it depends only on the space variable.

2.  Electromagnetic field, excluding particular cases of electrostatic field, stationary electric field and magnetic field, depends generally whether on the space variable or on the time variable.

3. In all cases electromagnetic field is based on the physical concept of charge that is evidently different from mass even if it is possible to establish a relationship between the two concepts.

4. The definition of gravitational field  Eg  and of gravitational induction Bg  is formal and fictitious while the electric field E and the magnetic indution B are real physical quantities.

Relative to the Theory of Informatons it seems to me it expresses the concept  that all physical reality is based on information between a source and an intelligent receiver but it is possible to controvert that the physical reality exists also in the absence of intelligent receiver.

The comparison between the classical theory of gravitation and the theory of GR doesn't consider both theories are based on outdated models: "the force at a distance" in classical theory and spacetime curvature in GR. The concept of  "force at a distance" doesn't consider  the scalar potential and the vector field that Newton didn't know and spacetime curvature is able to explain only the anomaly of Mercury's precession but not the complete precession of Mercury and of other planets.

Dear Daniele,

The theory of informatons does not introduce an "intelligent" receiver. 

The theory starts from the idea that any material object manifests itself in space by the emission - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - of "informatons": granular mass and energy less entities rushing away with the speed of light and carrying information about the position (g-information), the velocity and the electrical status of their emitter.  Primary an informaton is characterized by its g-index sg: a vectorial quantity that equals the elementary quantity of g-information and that - in the case of an informaton emitted by a point mass at rest - is pointing to the position of that emitter. This implies that the information about the position of its emitter is contained in the orientation of sg.

Further the theory identifies the gravitational field of a point mass with the cloud of informatons generated by that mass: g-information is considerd as the substance of the gravitational field.  Eg is the quantity that - at the macroscopic level - characterizes the flow of g-information at a point P of that field: it is the density of the flow of g-information at P [(density of the flow of informatons)x(sg)].  This implies that the magnitude of Eg contains information about the mass of the source of the field and  about the distance source-P, and that the orientation of Eg contains information about the position of that source.

Finally the theory explains the gravitational interaction as the effect of the tendency of a point mass to accelerate in order to become blind for flows of informatons generated by other masses.  To that end must a free point mass in a field Eg accelerate with an amount a = Eg

You would discard QED?  Just curious.

It is hard to replace QED, but of course also hard to apply it to gravity.  If the informatons do not carry energy or momentum, they are a little bit like the quasi-measurement interactions I hypothesized in the paper below.  At the time I did not know how to get spatial curvature out of this, but I believe I can now.

Article On Dynamics in a Quasi-Measurement Field

Dear Antoine,

thanks for your explanations. We know the light is composed of photons and we know also what is a photon: a boson particle with energy given by the Planck relation and massless. It seems to me that the Theory of Informatons aspires to replace the concept of photon with the concept of informaton: a particle maked of granular mass and energyless, i.e. the exact opposite of photon. Besides it aspires to replace the quantum electrodynamic concept  of electromagnetic nanofield, associated with each photon, with a gravito-electromagnetic field. I would like to understand the reason for those replacements. I think the aim is that of reaching an unification of different theories. Unification is a persistent purpose of postmodern physics and if it may be useful in a few situations it needs also to say a better understanding of the physical reality and a further development of physics is possible, from my viewpoint, only pointing out rather differences among physical situations than common aspects.

I appreciate much your effort for an innovative research outside conventional paths of postmodern physics and of neoclassical physics.

No!  The four vector equations of gravito-electromagnetism are an approximation to the ten field equations of general relativity that are valid if (1) fields are weak and (2) velocities are slow. So they can no more be an "alternative" to GR than Galilean mechanics is an alternative to SR. Also, it is important to note that while the GEM equations are "analogous" to Maxwell's equations, they are not identical. There are differences of units (of course); the GEM equations deal in "mass currents" rather than electrical ones, and the GEM equivalent of the magnetic field has units of spin (rad/s) rather than Teslas (this makes sense if you think about it). There are differences of sign (gravity is always attractive) and important numerical differences reflecting the fact that gravity is associated with a spin-2 field rather than the spin-1 field of electromagnetism. There are many good references on this topic. One especially clear and succinct one was written by Kip Thorne in a 1988 book titled Near Zero (edited by Fairbank, Michelson and Everitt); it is available from the Gravity Probe B website at http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/nz-Thorne_101.pdf.

@ Robert Shuler and Daniele Sasso,

I don't think that the identification of a photon as an informaton carrying a packet of energy is contrary to the generally accepted definition, nor that it discards QED.

On the contrary, these interpretation allows us to understand the strange behaviour of light as described by QED.  Indeed, the wave character can be understood as the macroscopic manifestation of the kinematics of the informatons emitted by an oscillating point charge; and the corpuscular character as the manifestation of the fact that some of those informatons are carriers of a quantum of energy.

More details in § 6.3.4  of the paper "Electromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons" . (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268575880_ELECTROMAGNETISM_EXPLAINED_BY_THE_THEORY_OF_INFORMATONS?ev=prf_pub)

Article ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS

I notice that some of the partcipants are stuck in boundless theories but don't give any attention to the fact that gravitomagnetism (or GEM, on which Antoine Acke has based his theory) confirms by a simple calculus, the bending of light (two times the Newtonian bending), the Mercury perihelion advance, the results of the Gravity Probe B experiment, the prograde orbits of disk galaxies, the non-(or only partial) explosion of fast spinning stars and so on.

The gravity field is of course real and the magnetism-like second field is formed by the velocity of masses. The second field is required in the confirmation of the above phenomena. So, this is real and not a theoretical chimera.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence of spacetime. There is no reason whatsoever to consider gravity as a “strong” field, and that gravitomagnetism is “only” a linear theory.

There is no physical proof by experiment of the Lorentz contraction as to be a intrinsic reality of matter or even of space, and an intrinsic time dilatation of space is not proven either by experiment. The µ-meson time dilatation is the only possible indication that has been advanced, but it can easily been explained by gravitomagnetism, where gravity exerts a contraction to fast moving objects, allowing the mesons to not quickly desintegrate.

Gravitomagnetism proves that clocks can run slower, and this equation depends on the exact physical constitution of the clock. Nothing to do with an intrinsic time dilatation.

@Acke, I don't see a strange behavior of light that is clearly composed of unidirectional or omnidirectional beams of photons. Therefore it presents whether a macroscopic characteristic (beam) or a microscopic characteristic (photon). You specified informaton is a particle composed of granular mass and it is energyless. It would be therefore the vector that carries the photon energy. This isn't necessary because electromagnetic waves and nanowaves are physical phenomena where there is propagation of only energy without any need of a mass vector. From my viewpoint electromagnetism represented by Maxwell's equations is fully satisfactory and the only proposal of variation would regard the replacement of the equation on divergence of the magnetic induction with the Lorentz equation, as it is possible to see for more details in my contributions.

With regard to experimental aspects listed by De Mees (double bending of spacetime, Mercury's precession, etc..), that are considered by DM evident proofs of validity whether for GR or for GEM I observe those experimental results are controversial  on a pair with experimental results about the Lorentz contraction, time dilation, muon lifetime dilation that regard instead theoretical concepts of SR.

With regard to Overduin's comment I would specify SR would be an alternative to the Galilean relativity but anyway the Theory of Reference Frames (TR) is an alternative to both for dynamics of inertial systems and is an alternative to GR and to GEM for dynamics of non-inertial systems.

Daniele, allow me to give a few explanations by my earlier interventions.

1.When I mentioned "the strange behaviour of light as described by QEM" I was [inspired by the title of the book of Richard P. Feynman: "QED, the strange Theory of Light and Matter" (1985)] referring to the theory and not to the light as such.

2. In the context of electromagnetism we focus on informatons emitted by point charges. An informaton is defined as a mass and energy less entity.  The attribute of the informatons that is at the base of the E-field is their e-index se.  It is a vectorial quantity.  The orientation of the e-indices emitted in a certain direction by an oscillating point charge fluctuates at a rate determined by the oscillation.  The macroscopic effect of this is a transverse E-wave.  Some of the informatons that constitue that wave are carriers of a packet of energy, it are photons.  So, EM radiation is explained as a wave that is transporting energy and we can say that the carriers of the energy packets (the informatons) have a vectorial nature.

The Principle of Relativity is the first postulate of SR. It needs to specify that in Galilean physics the PR isn't an axiom but a principle deduced directly from the experimental observation like Galileo specified in his main paper  "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"  and like I reminded in my paper " Short History of Relativity" and in other papers. Only then Galileo and later Newton enunciated the PR in the mathematical shape with respect to inertial reference frames.

In order to derive Lorentz's Transformations in SR Einstein maked use of the second postulate on the Constancy of the Speed of Light and simultaneously he maked use of the PR in a shape (c+-v)  that he will prove wrong later.

The existence of magnetic field isn't theoretical but it is related to experimental works by Oersted, Ampere, Arago, Biot, Savart and others.

Concepts of covariance and invariance are different and the PR is related to the concept of invariance of physical laws with respect to inertial reference frames. The Theory of Reference Frames demonstrates Maxwell's equations and electromagnetism are invariant for inertial reference frames with respect to a new group of transformations confirming fully like this the universality of the only Principle of Relativity.

With regard to the comparison between Newton's mechanical law and Lorentz's electrodynamic law, it needs to specify there is a substantial difference between two laws. In Newton's mechanical law the force is the cause that produces an effect of acceleration. In Lorentz's electrodynamic law the speed v and the magnetic induction B are causes and the Lorentz force is the effect. The correct application of the causality principle proves there is no contradiction between mechanical behavior and electrodynamic behavior of physical systems.

Correct, Akira Kanda. In fact, Jefimenko could derive Lorentz's Transformations and the SR equations from electromagnetism, only by using the principle of retardation of the fields at a distance, due to the propagation velocity c.

The EM theory fits well with this principle, and Jefimenko comes to the correct equations, even for large, 'relativistic' velocities.

EM can be succesfully transwritten into GEM. As I pointed out in my paper "Did Einstein cheat?", I come to the correct bending of light and to the correct perihelion advance of Mercury.

Can the theory of Gravito-electromagnetism replace the General Theory of Relativity? I would say "no." GE is a special case of GRT. In order to replace GRT it would have to be able to: (1) Accurately predict gravitational redshift of light, (2) accurately predict the ray bending of star light by the Gravitational field of the sun, (3) Accurately predict the relativistic perihelion shift of the orbit of Mercury, (4) Predict the formation of Black Holes under the right conditions, (5) Gravitational lensing. The question is: can GE do all of this? GRT makes these predictions.          

To E. Zampino: I have some comments: GEM can do all of that, as explained in several of my papers.But it explians much more about cosmic phenomenas.

Concerning your issue (3): this is flawed in GR, as Anatoli Vankov could prove in his paper "Einstein’s Paper: “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”. The resulting perihelion advance of GR is in fact zero. If anyone can find a flaw in Vankov's paper, I would like to know it.

Remark that (2) and (5) are the same. By the way, GEM is not deducible from GR, so it is not a special case of GR. The pretended deduction is flawed because a flattened spinning sphere is required in GR, while in GEM it isn't.

To speak about an alternative we need to distinguish several parts in GR. GR is first a theory about the geometry of the universe, a generalization of SR form an affine space to a manifold. This part has been proven (such as in the GPS system).

GR includes also a theory of gravitation, which can be summed up by the equality between the gravitational and the inertial charge. This does not mean that gravitation is replaced by geometry. And the usual formalism of GR, based upon the metric, is misleading. In a more elegant and general formalism,using fiber bundle, it is actually possible to express the theory of graviation of GR as the other fields, through connections (the metric is then a byproduct). The key variable is then the strength of the field, and for the gravitational field this is a 2 form, simlilar to the F of EM, but valued in the Lie algebra of the Spin group. This quantity can be split, like the EM field, in a transversal component (similar to the electric field) and a rotational component (similar to the magnetic field). This is of interest because this decomposition (as for the EM field) depends on the observer, and for the gravitational field it looks as if the rotational field (measured in the space)  corresponds to the usual gravity, and the transversal part would be linked to the force that moves all material bodies on their world line. And of course could explain that the usual gravity is much weaker than the other forces.

This formalism is fully compatible with the usual theory of gravitation in GR, and the Einstein equation is easily obtained ina model with a lagrangian using the scalar curvature. However if we replace the scalar curvature (which has a weak physical justification) and the Hilbert action, by the scalar product FF (as for the other fields) one retrieves for the gravitational field, equations  which are similar to the Maxwell's equations, with currents. And moreover it can be quantized.

So, GEM is not an alternative to the full GR, but it can be as an interesting development in the study of the gravitational field in the framework of GR. A study which is badly needed. And could be an alternative of the so praised theories involving dark matter or pink energy.

Akira,

Special and General Relativity are used in the Global positioning system (see Ashby for the equations). So, at least for its geometric part, Relativity is proven.

I would publish never a paper of mine in a journal like Physical Review Letters that takes on those cultural positions excluding out-going every critical research. The cultural position of that journal and of so many other similar journals is:

"You criticize modern physics because you don't understand it".

It is ridiculous. It is equivalent to say Hegel criticized Kant because he didn't understand Kant.

In the Theory of Reference Frames a GPS system formed by a geostationary station orbiting at an average orbital distance of 20000Km, at an orbital speed of 16000Km/h, generates a position maximum error of 297m. In order to compare this result with results in other theories (GR+SR, GEM, etc..) I would be grateful to respective supporters of those theories to calculate the position error in every theory in the same physical conditions. Thanks for cooperation.

Einstein's main error in GR is that of having maked use of the tensor model. He was influenced by geometries non-Euclidean and thought that model allowed an unification of SR and GR, also as per Minkowski's work. Besides he was convinced Lorentz's Transformations were right even if he didn't accept ether.

I admire theoretical questions that you raise. I am searching for giving an answer to many questions in theoretical physics. It is very interesting the question on the "continuum hypothesis". In particular it seems to me that Planck-Einstein's relation is verified only when it is applied to discontinuous nature of electronic orbits in atom.

Dear Antoine,

It seems like Oliver Heaviside had a number of good ideas/insights such as the possible relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, as you had suggested. He was very curious about Maxwell’s equations, which he explored thoroughly, thinking they were telling us much more than was understood about them. Based on our studies, he was very right.

If it is believed that gravity or gravity fields emanate from matter; then, in order to give an appropriate answer to your question, we have to, first, know what matter is and how it works and we have to know what energy/mass is and how it works. The book in the 3rd attachment provides this information. The text below gives brief statements on matter and energy/mass, but please review the book for a better understanding of these statements. After this, a brief presentation is given to show how behavior at the atomic level underlies the formation of gravity fields at the macroscopic level; but please review the book for a better understanding of this presentation. The 1st and 2nd attachments are excerpted from the book for your convenience.

MATTER: Per Figure 2, in any of the three attachments, a view of the electron is given; it shows photon fibers combining to form two half cylindrical B-fields, which together is an electron. Thus, electrons are tiny fields, not hard particles. The two half fields oscillate inward and outward along their common z-axis. The reason why fibers (photons) combine to form a cylindrical B-field is given by Maxwell’s equations; please see the 2nd or 3rd attachment for the electron’s derivation. This tiny field has both particle and wave characteristics in an interferometer but doesn’t translate as a wave. The construction of other particles, such as protons and neutrons, consist of cylindrical B-fields also, similar to the electron. See Section 4 in the book for example. Thus, all matter is a compilation of cylindrical B-fields, which consist of oscillating and twirling photon fibers. Explanation of the photon fiber is given in the next paragraph. The charge of an electron is negative because its circumferential B-field is left-handed, while that of the proton is right-handed. A neutron has no charge because it consists of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed twirling fibers. The electric force between two atomic particles is generated when the half B-field of one particle overlaps with the other particle’s half B-field; per Maxwell’s equation, a change in “B” is felt by each other, which mobilizes the electric force between the particles. This force acts perpendicular to the circumferential B-Field. As such, the electric force “E” is not a field unto itself, but results from and is synchronized with the movement and/or change in the B field. See Section 3 in the book for further development of this.

ENERGY: The universe only contains photon fibers and they are the only energy source in the universe. Figure 1, in any of the attachments, provides a view of the photon fiber, which are also called heat fibers sometimes. The energy of a photon (heat fiber), given by Planck’s law E = hν, arises from its light-speed oscillatory motion along its length and about its origin (which is at its mid-length), rather than its translational motion. Its oscillatory motion is perpendicular to its translation. Per Figure 1, perpendicular elements develop along the fiber length, due to Lorentz length contraction, as it oscillates back and forth at light-like speed along its length. These perpendicular elements give its B-field as it twirls about its origin. See Figure 10 in Section 6 of the book to see how an electromagnetic wave is formed when the fiber translates. The energy given by the fiber oscillation is related to its oscillation range or stroke; shorter strokes yield shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies, and thus greater energies. The fiber energy hν is the limit of the external work that may be performed by a fiber during an interaction with a system or the internal energy contribution, the fiber gives to a macroscopic body, of which it is part of. The fiber’s intrinsic perpetual oscillating motion gives rise to the laws of energy conservation; that is, without such motion, energy would not be conserved in any process.

PHOTON  FIBER  ENERGY  UNDERLIES  MACROSCOPIC  ENERGY/MASS: A photon fiber’s energy may vary during interactions with other fibers or as it contributes to the internal energy of a stationary macroscopic body. For example, a fiber that is admitted into an electron B-field may have its oscillation range altered. As explained in the 2nd attachment or Section 2 of the book, fibers nearer the x–y plane (center) of the electron (per Figure 2) are closer together, and thus denser, than more distant fibers. The higher fiber densities result in shorter oscillation ranges for them (as derived in the book) and consequently higher energies. The increased energy of fibers near the x–y plane manifests as greater external energy upon their emission from an electron. The opposite effect yields smaller energies for fibers at both tail ends of the electron, where their oscillation ranges are longer and they are less dense. Hence, the mechanism of the oscillating electron B-field depicted in Figures 2 & 3 accounts for the varying energies of emitted fibers (radiation); for example, x-ray and radio photon fibers reside near the center and tail ends of the electron, respectively. Summing the energies of all fibers in the electron, we obtain the sum of their energies prior to their joining the electron field, even though their energies were altered (some greater, some less) upon their admission into the electron B-field. The energies of the fibers in the B-fields of electrons, protons, and neutrons of atoms and molecules vary similarly. (Please note that the cylindrical B-fields in Figures 2 and 3 are not drawn to scale; its diameter is smallest at the x-y plane and largest at each tail end.)

The at-rest energy (Einstein’s E = mc2) of an electron, proton, or neutron B-field (and thus, a macroscopic body) arises from oscillation of its photon fibers along their lengths; the sum of its photons’ energies gives the energy of the macroscopic body, E = mc2. As explained in the book, the inertia (mass) of a B-field is also generated by the same oscillatory movements of the photon fibers in the B-field. This state of internal motion (inertia) of the B-field must be overcome if the whole B-field (thus body) is to accelerate, which requires sufficient force. Thus, mass should not be associated with weight because mass is a measure of the inertia of a body’s internal energy. Indirectly then, mass is also a measure of the gravity field (which is generated by the same oscillatory movements of the photon fibers along their lengths and also along the z-axes of the B-fields of a body) due to the relationship of a body’s mass (inertia) to its internal energy.

B-FIELDS  IN  ATOMS  UNDERLIE  MACROSCOPIC  GRAVITY  FIELDS: As derived in the book, the gravity field of a particle is generated from oscillatory movements of its photon fibers along their lengths and also perpendicular to their lengths as each of the particle’s half B-fields (consisting of photons) moves in and out along the z-axis of its whole B-field. Special circumferential B field bands occur at the particle’s x-y plane (center) where the innermost fiber of each half B-field of an electron, for example, crosses over to each other’s side before being repelled by each other, and then returning to their proper sides. The special alternating B field bands that are generated at the crossover zone, due to this movement, give the gravity field, BG for the subject particle - the electron for example. The macroscopic gravity field is a composite of numerous atomic gravity fields. The microscopic BG fields of the many electrons and protons comprising a body or substance, such as H2 gas, form macroscopic alternating bands of electron- and proton-produced BG fields.

Just as electrons’ cylindrical B-fields accumulate and combine to form a large composite B-field in electrical current rather than a formation of individual B-fields of individual electrons, so do the bands of microscopic BG gravity fields. As the BG bands accumulate and combine within a body, such as a sphere of H2 gas, they also grow and extend beyond the body surface. The gravity fields of larger bodies are stronger and extend further because more atomic BG fields contribute to the overall field. As derived in the book, the rotational direction of circumferential BG field bands of a particle alternates. Due to this, the gravitational force between particles (thus, between bodies) is always attractive. The foundation for Newton’s gravitational formulation is derived in the book. As explained in the book, spacetime is a measuring tool, not a structure, process or mechanism. General relativity is Newton’s gravitational law adjusted for relativistic-type effects. Newton’s gravitational formulation is recovered in GR for weaker fields and smaller velocities, which give negligible relativistic-type effects.

The foregoing gives a brief outline on how and why macroscopic gravity may develop. Please let me know if you have any comments.

 Regards,

Dan S. Correnti

Article UNVEILING of the ELECTRON (Post #1) [A Proposed Electron Structure]

Article DERIVATION of the ELECTRON (Post #2)

Book New Physics Framework (Post 5.1)

@ Dan S. Correnti,

Thanks for your reaction.  Getting into the details of your work will take some time.  If I have any comments I will let you know.

@ Akira Kanda,

When I think of gravitational and electromagnetic fields I don't think of "force fields", but of the spatial manifestations of respectively the mass and the charge of material bodies.

A field is time indenpendent if its sources are anchored (relative to an inertial reference frame), otherwise it is a dynamic structure.  Specifically, a set of particles anchored in an inertial reference frame O is creating and maintaining a time independent graviational field that at each point P of the space linked to O is completely determined by the vector Eg: the density of the flow of g-information at P.  At each point, except its own anchorage, the mass of each particle contributes to the construction of the field.

Let us, in particular, consider the particle M anchored at the point P.  If the other particles were not there, M would be at the centre of a perfectly spherical cloud of g-information (its own gravitational field).  In reality this is not the case: the presence of the other particles is responsible for the disturbance of that "characteristic symmetry".  Because Eg in P represents the intensity of the flow of g-information send to P by the masses of the other particles, the extent of disturbance of that characteristic symmetry in the direct vicinity of M is determined by Eg  at P.  If it was free to move, the particle M could restore the characteristic symmetry of the g-information cloud (the field) in its direct vicinity by accelerating with an amount a = Eg.  Accelerating this way has the effect that the extern field disappears in the origin of the reference frame anchored to M.  If it accelerates that way, the particle would become "blind" for the g-information send to P by the other particles (blind for the gravitational field at P), it would "see" only its own  g-information cloud.

So, a point mass anchored at a point of a gravitational field is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by Eg, the g-field at that point. Once the anchorage is broken, the point mass acquires a vectorial acceleration a = Eg.

In other words, a particle M, anchored at a point P of a gravitational field, experiences an action because of that field, an action that is compensated by the anchorage.  That action is proportional not ony to Eg  (the disturbance of the characteristic symmetry of the own field of the particle) but also to m0  (the rest mass of M).  Indeed, the greater m0  the more compact the g-information cloud created by the particle in its direct vicinity and the less sensitive it is for disturbances, what implies that - if m0 is greater -  a greater action is needed to impose the acceleration a = Eg .  We represent that action by FG and we call that vectorial quantity "the force developed by the field on the particle" or the gravitational force on the particle.  We define it by the relation: FG = m0.Eg.  If the particle is free, it will be accelerated with an amount a:    a = Eg = FG/m0.

We generalize these ideas in the papers: "Gravito-electromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons", "Electromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons" and "Fundamentals of the theory of informatons".

To Antoine,

Whatever one believes about Relativity it has taught us that the world which is accessible to our measures depends on the observer : even if we can enjoy and freely use representations and formalism which encompass the total universe, the only part on which we can check physical laws depends on where and when the observer is located. This seems obvious but has serious consequences.

Fields are usually defined with two properties : they have a value everywhere (so that they act on material bodies where these bodies are) and they propagate (their value change over time). If it is possible to conceive a formalism to represent a field with these properties, this is not without problems. Does a field has a value in the past and the future ? Do exist privileged lines of propagation for a field ? The only way to solve this conundrum is to admit that propagation is observer-dependant : propagation is a phenomenon which is measured by an observer, and is not necessarily the same as measured by another observer, so the value assigned to a field depends on the observer (a field has no value in the future of a given observer).

In Relativity material bodies, as well as observers, move along world lines in a 4 dimensional manifold (an affine space is a special manifold). And their motion is given by their velocity (derivative with respect to their proper time) which acquiers a privileged status : it is the direction of the propagation of any field (EM as well as gravitational) and from there one can split the field in components which are transversal (in the direction of the motion of the observer) and rotational (in the space of the observer), in a way similar to the electric and magnetic fields.

It is common to speak about "inertial observers". This is a legacy of Newtonian mechanics, and difficult to handle in the relativist context, all the more so in GR. Their definition is complicated, and invoke inertial observers without a good understanding of what they are is just putting confusion on a diffcult topic.

Particles are the sources of the fields. They move, and so the fields change. The changes occur through propagation. Propagation is not instantaneous. So it seems difficult that this propagation is always continuous : we should accept the possibility that the adjustments can be made by a discontinuity. We have the same phenomena for the propagation of sound waves in a medium : sometimes a shock wave appears because a continuous adjustment is impossible. Such discontinuities can be the bosons (photons for EM, gravitons) which propagate with properties similar to particles.

To Jean-Claude: What happens in reality has to be totally disconnected from what is seen. What happens is absolutely not connected to the observer. Firstly, one has to know what really happens and then only, one can check, depending upon the measuring tools, what will be the impact on what we observe and measure.

The relativity concept tries to connect all together, which is wrong because mechanisms of clocks don't always behave the same way. Depending from their electromagnetic internals, clocks are proven to get different time measurement changes with velocity.

To Akira: I agree that “force fields” are the wrong name. We should call it electric, magnetic, gravity or gyrotation field, because the term “force” would already include the receiving charge/mass.

When a charge is put in an electric field, that field will be increased/decreased and changed by that presence.

“Em fields certainly is NOT relativistic”

You probably mean this in the context of the description of EM fields by the Maxwell equations. First of all, the covariance is not an essential element, and has wrongly been elevated to essential, in order to not do the calculus work properly but instead, to use thoughtless rules of thumb.

The right way to operate is the following according to Oleg Jefimenko. First, the Maxwell equations have to be formulated as equations of causality, because the Maxwell equations just show an equivalence between the electric and the magnetic field in local situations. With the equations of causality, one will calculate the result of a field at a distance from the source.

The essential thing is that, if the description of EM fields takes care of the delay due to the propagation of the field by a velocity c, we get the adapted EM field equations for fast moving charges. This calculus have been successfully made by Jefimenko.

His calculus for obtaining the SR equations is based upon the result that would be obtained if an electromagnetic field in a coordinate system (say, frame) would be measured from another coordinate system, which moves with a constant relative speed, assuming that the speed of propagation is c.

How was that calculus done? When one considers that the electromagnetic field progresses at a constant speed, the field will arrive at a certain point at a distance with a retardation. The original electromagnetic field of the first frame, measured in the second, moving frame, is then found.

The same thing can be achieved by comparing the Lorentz force (you know, F = q(E+vxB)) from both frames, and that gives also some result, by using the transformations of the electromagnetic fields above.

Finally, when one uses this Lorentz force to get a mass accelerated, and one compares the expression F = ma in both frames, one gets the so-called Lorentz transformations and the basis of SR.

However, the sole real success of SR is the explanation of the Compton effect, for which the constancy of the speed c is not even required, because everything takes place in the same location. Why aren't there any other successes of the SR? In the first place, because none of the known physical issues requires it.

What is definitely wrong in Einsteinian SR, are the further interpretations, paradoxes etc, which are that since one measures the modified electromagnetic fields and the Lorentz forces, the tools themselves would allegedly be physically transformed as well, the same way!

By not making distinction between the measuring tools, one gets the weird and wrong Einsteinian interpretations.

Instead, what we know is happening and what we see happening, are two different things.

Einsteinian SR got snared by trying to only work on what we (are supposed to) see.

But if one makes abstraction of the variable c and of a possible physical transformation of the measuring tools themselves, the mathematical SR transformations are right. One needs then to reconsider what are the possible physical transformations that the measuring tools would be subject to, depending from their construction, position and velocity.

To Thierry,

"What happens is absolutely not connected to the observer"

So, do you mean that the mesures done by an observer have no relation whatsoever with the real world ????

"mechanisms of clocks don't always behave the same way" In the usual presentation of Relativity clocks play a great role. This is not justified. Actually one can prove the key theorems of geometric relativity without clocks.

To Jean-Claude: You get my words out of context. What I said is that the connection between what we see and what really happens at the source cannot be comprised in one sole standard concept.

What really happens between two coordinate systems that have a relative velocity can be expressed by transformations that include the time retardation of the fields. This is valid for electromagnetic events as well as for simple mechanical event, as I explained in my reply to Akira above.

But what we see or measure will depend upon the physical properties of the instrument and from the relationship between the instrument and the location of the event. This will also obey to transformations, depending upon the precise kind of instrument.

SR supposes the equal time dilatation for all clocks and the equal length contraction for all objects. But it can be easily proven for the clocks with an internal electromagnetic harmonic motion, that the time dilatation will differ from case to case, depending from how this harmonic motion is formed. For instance, a charge oscillating at the central axis of a charged ring can get another time dilatation than a charge oscillating between two 'point' charges, and this result will also be affected by the relative orientation of the clock's mechanism with regard to its velocity orientation.

Since this is a pure electromagnetic matter due to the retardation of the fields, I don't see how you could not accept this fact, which has been demonstrated for numerous different oscillators by Jefimenko.

It follows that, although the retardation of the fields between two coordinate systems at a relative velocity leads to the Lorentz Transformations that are used in SR, the interpretation of a universal and equal length and time change is flawed.

Hence, one must disconnect the events of what really happens from the observation and study them separately. Of course, we know that this is not always easy, like with the double split experiment for electrons. But in the context of electromagnetic fields and simple mechanics it is fairly possible to do it. Gravitomagnetism allows to do it for gravity as well.

As a conclusion, saying that physical laws depend on where and when the observer is located is short-sighted because it doesn't respect the description of the event separately from the observation, whereby wrong insights are obtained. Also, SR wrongly supposes the possible length contraction and time-dilatation values to be universal.

To Thierry,

It is a common belief that in Relativity there is a contraction of lengths or clocks. Actually there is nothing like a physical change of lengths or clocks. Observers just do not measure the same things. In particular as a consequence of the basic assumptions of Relativity all the clocks run at the same rate, which is the biological rate of the observers.

Akira Kanda wrote: "Field is a continuum concept and particle (charge) is an atomistic concept and atomism and continuum do not go toghether without running into contradiction soon or later".

I think that the description as a continuum of a (gravitational or electromagnetic) field,  that has been identified as a cloud of granular entities ("informatons") that are carrying a physical quantity ("information"),  is justified by the fact that each spatial region of that cloud contains a very lager number of grains: from a macroscopic point of view the physical quantity ("information") is continuouly spread over the volume.  It follows of course that the field as a continuum concept is only valid for the description of (gravitational and electromagnetic) phenomena on the macroscopic level.

In Newtonian physics any type of interaction was based on the action at a distance, it is normal because in Newtonian times the physico-mathematical concept of vector field and of scalar potential didn't exist yet. Consequently the action at a distance required a propagation time and therefore a delay between the application instant of force and the execution instant of effect. In the theory of vector field there is a delay only in the beginning for the initial formation of the field and of the scalar potential in corrispondence of space coordinates where the field has a physical meaning. When the field, due to the primary source, is formed any interaction is instantaneous and therefore there isn't delay between cause and effect.

The Principle of Relativity is based on a concept of invariance of physical laws with respect to inertial reference frames. The concept of invariance involves a "non-variation". The concept of covariance has instead another meaning, it was used for indicating a variation of coordinates of a point and of components of a vector with respect to a simple static rotation of axes of a reference frame. The concept of covariance involves therefore a "variation" of coordinates and of components and it doesn't involve an invariance of physical laws.I think in every discussion it is important to give the right meaning to words, otherwise besides normal difficulties of understanding other obstacles join.     

With regard to the debate on "continuum hypothesis" I would want to specify the concept of point has only a mathematical and geometric meaning while in physics it has no meaning because the point has zero volume. Anyway the point is a very useful model in physics in order to represent particular situations like for example the barycentre of a body. An open interval and real numbers are isomorphic because a geometric point corresponds to every real number, but that isomorphism is a internal property to mathematics and in physics it has no meaning. Mathematics and physics are two different and important sciences and the reciprocal use has to consider respective peculiarities.

Daniele,

All science is based on two things :a rational narrative about concepts such as points; particles; fields, which are assumed to have properties which can be measured, and a collection of standard procedurs to check the theories against the real word. What relativity  tells us is that the way we see, and measure, the universe depends on the observer : every one of them has a window open to the physical world, and it is not the same. What QM tells us is that the conclusions of our measures come after an estimation process which is based upon a finite number of data trying to estimate quantities which belong to infinite dimensional spaces. This is not deseperate, but we have to learn to live andto understand the real world from our limited instruments. Our theories are representations of ths world, which go beyond what canbe checked, but this is not a motive to drop them. They help to conceive of something which can be real, and anyway that let us drive our imagination.

The concept of force field didn't arise from gravitational questions but from considerations relative to the experimental physics of electrostatics and magnetism. Only after it was applied also to gravitational questions. The Newton third law, relative to Action and Reaction, is one of fundamental laws of Dynamics and it isn't in conflict with the concept of field. In body falling on the earth's surface, for example, the main force field is generated by the earth that causes a force on the body and produces the body falling but in its turn body generates a field and a reaction force, equal and opposite, on the earth and this is hardly observable and measurable because of the great difference of mass between body and earth. Considering similar masses  it is possible to observe and to measure those forces.

It is true, the relativity tells us that with respect to inertial reference frames what we measure or calculate depends on the inertial observer when nevertheless physical quantity that we are mesuring depends on the relative speed, like for instance position, speed, frequency, wavelength, etc.. Other mechanical quantities, like acceleration, force, etc.. are independent of the relative speed for inertial reference frames. In actuality the Principle of Relativity tells us that laws of physics, and not physical quantities, are invariant with respect  to all inertial reference frames.

What QM tells us is based on the Principle of Indetermination that, from my viewpoint, is not a principle of physics. My scientific position on that is simple: when a physical quantity cannot be measured or observed, for instance position in real time of a moving particle, we cannot  make use of that quantity in our physical relations. We have nevertheless possibility of measuring with great accuracy the orbital position of electron inside atom through very precise spectroscopic measures. Our scientific theories must revolve around our rationality and our measure instruments, whose limits are in progress, and they not must revolve around false physical principles that limit our rational and inventive abilities.

Exhaustive discussion of this subject is found in one of Zel'dovich-Novikov books.

Уважаемый коллега! Классическая электродинамика дает для перигелия электрона в поле протона одну шестую эффекта ОТО. А для отклонения света половину от наблюдаемого эффекта. Вместе с тем существует много теорий, из которых получаются эффекты ОТО. Мною создана электродинамика  связанных зарядов, которая без рассмотрения ОТО приводит к тому, что риманова геометрия перестает быть прерогативой теории Эйнштейна. Найдены точные уравнения структуры, которые ограничивают область применимости уравнений Эйнштейна. Например, не существуют решений уравнений Эйнштейна для постоянного однородного поля гравитации, аналогичного полю от бесконечной равномерно заряженной плоскости в электростатике. Все вопросы содержатся в моих книгах, изданных в России и Германии на русском языке. Частично вопросы рассмотрены в статьях IJRAP 2014  2015 годов, выставленных здесь. Там имеются и ссылки на книги.  Спасибо за вопрос.      

@ S.A. Podesenov,

Dear Collegue,  thanks for your response.  Can I infer from your reply that GEM cannot be considered as an approximation for GRT?

@ Zafar Turakulov,

Thanks for the link.  Can you tell something about the conclusions in relation to the question: "May gravito-electromagnetism be an alternative to Einsteins general relativity?"

Уважаемые коллеги! Электродинамика связанных зарядов отличается от классической по следующим пунктам: 1. Она описывается в рамках римановой геометрии. Это следует из того факта, что поле  равноускоренного заряда в системе отсчета, связанного с этим зарядом является аксиально симметричным вне зависимости от правила перехода от инерциальной системы к неинерциальной. Поле от заряда подвешенного в гравитационном статическом поле Ньютона в силу принципа эквивалентности также аксиально симметрично. И предположения, что поле заряда подвешенного в электростатическом поле также аксиально симметрично. Отсюда следует, что поле  от зарядов на нитях одинаковой длины и связанных в один узел состоит из суммы полей от зарядов, которые нити тянут к центру.  Это поле будет сферически симметричным, но не кулоновским. При стремлении длины нитей к нулю получим поле от точечного заряда, Это поле не будет бесконечным в начале координат и энергия поля будет конечной и равной сумме удвоенных масс покоя зарядов, создающих поле. Таким простым способом устраняется расходимость поля точечного заряда.     

@ S. A. Podosenov: You say that Gravitomagnetism doesn't find the double bending of light. This is incorrect. The annexed paper explains the double bending based upon Heaviside's and Jefimenko's work.

Research Did Einstein cheat ?

В разрабатываемой нами теории связанных зарядов при замене констант взаимодействия электростатических на гравитационные уравнения Максвелла для слабых полей приводят к соответствию между теориями Максвелла и Эйнштейна. Для сильных полей уравнения Эйнштейна приводят к парадоксам. На это обращал внимание и Эйнштейн. Однако его последователи слова трудности теории заменили словами особые свойства. 

@ S. A. Podosenov: I agree that SR leads to insolvable paradoxes, say, errors. The Lorentz transformations however, seen as retarded fields of electromagnetic fields or of Lorentz forces or of equivalent mechanic forces, between two coordinate systems, make sense.

No wonder that only the Compton effect can be explained by SR: it doesn't need the second postulate, nor the SR interpretations, because all happens at one single place and moment.

Two more points concerning your answer:

1) Is there any reason to claim that the gravity fields are strong? No, there aren't. Maxwell tested this eventuality and decided that it was not likely. See the link below to Maxwell's analysis, pages 492 and 493.

2) Gravitomagnetism can not be deduced from GR and so, cannot be seen as a linearisation of it. The ersatz of gravitomagnetism is obtained by manipulating an already linearized metric of GR, i.e. by introducing (coming from nowhere) a perturbation to the Minkowski metric. Moreover, it needs an oblate sphere in order to imitate gravitomagnetism, while in the latter theory, normal spheres are used.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field.pdf

It is known that In mathematics two algebraic sign errors give however  the right result. That is in mathematics sometimes two subsequent mistakes make however a truth. In logic this is not possible and two subsequent mistakes make however a mistake. Similarly it is not correct to say firstly "SR leads to insolvable errors" and then to say " the Lorentz Transformations however.....make sense" because SR is based completely on those transformations.

I wrote already in a preceding comment of mine gravitoelectromagnetism or gravitomagnetism would be a fascinating theory because it would imply an unification into an only theory of two different groups of physical phenomena.  Now nevertheless we observe for instance with reference to the earth that it generates a gravitational field but simultaneously it generates also a magnetic field and these two fields are completely different physical realities. Similarly charged massive elementary particles generate a weak gravitational field while electrostatic field is very strong with respect to. A simple calculation proves ratio between electrostatic force and gravitational force for two particles is about  1040.

Уважаемые коллеги! Я считаю, что теория Максвелла при соответствующей модификации может быть заменой ОТО. К сожалению, с работами Хэвисайда не знаком. Поэтому не могу комментировать именно работы Хэвисайда. С моей точки зрения кривизна пространства-времени не является прерогативой ОТО Эйнштейна и любые силовые поля могут изменить кривизну пространства-времени. До настоящего времени только гравитационным полям отдавалась эта привилегия и ОТО стояла в стороне от электромагнетизма и других силовых полей. Все остальные полевые теории были ковариантны относительно преобразований Лоренца. Далее я не понял возражений Тьерри Де Миса по поводу отклонения света в ньютоновской теории гравитации. Ясно, что результат отклонения ультрарелятивистской заряженной частицы в кулоновском поле эквивалентен отклонению света в ньютоновском поле и в два раза меньше, чем в ОТО.  

@ Daniele Sasso: I agree with you that gravitomagnetism is fascinating, because the Gravity Probe B experiment proved it right. It is furthermore utmost logical that EM and gravity would be alike.

Another thing about what you say: “SR is based completely on those transformations”, and also, you conclude that it is not possible that the LT are correct but SR is not.

I am afraid that your point of view is not correct.

As I explained to Akira: the LT are found by analysing the EM field of an event in a frame, measured from another frame that has a velocity v. This includes the retardation of the fields. This can be done for the E and the B field. The same can be done for the Lorentz force F = q (E + V x B). And comparing this force to a force F = m a , both frames are compared and the LT are found. This is pure EM theory.

Another thing are the postulates and its interpretation that SR include, and which lead to the paradoxes (in fact errors), by not respecting the local absoluteness of the LT equations any more with respect to the original EM fields. These postulates and interpretation however have nothing to do with the LT and are not required by it.

Hence, it is certainly possible to get a wrong SR with the correct LT.

@ S. A. Podosenov: If I understood well, you would maintain the Newtonian bending for light. The question is: what has really been measured? According to NASA that I questioned about this, it is confirmed that the measurements get two times the Newtonian bending. Since Gravitomagnetism (GEM) obtains the double bending by a normal calculus without artifices or apprximations, why should we retrograde it to the Newtonian bending?

Another question is if there is space-time bending. The first requirement is that the gravity fields would be “strong”. Where is the evidence of this? Dark Matter is a chimera that was invented because the orbiting stars in disc galaxies don't follow Kepler's laws. Why should they by the way? The Kepler law is only valid for a big central mass and few, tiny orbiting masses. The Newton law however is valid in all cases (for not too high velocities). If one would have used the Newton law instead of the Kepler law, one would come to the correct velocities of the stars in disc galaxies. See my exerpt below.

So, there is no Dark Matter.

Concerning Heaviside, I rather would suggest to read Oleg Jefimenko's work, based upon Heaviside's, and which covers EM, GEM, LT, which corrects SR, and which replaces GR.

Уважаемый коллега, Тьерри Де Миса! Спасибо за совет прочитать Олега Jtfimenko. Согласен с Вами, что в настоящее время теоретики, признающие слепо ОТО, уходят чересчур неоправданно далеко со своими выводами. Это касается и темной материи и гравитационного коллапса. Экспериментальная база в настоящий момент не позволяет делать скоропалительных выводов на базе ОТО Эйнштейна. Например, гравитационный коллапс легко объяснил Лаплас, основываясь на чисто ньютоновских позициях.  Однако хочу заметить, что последовательное использование закона всемирного тяготения Ньютона  приводит к риманову пространству -времени, без связи с ОТО. 

Dear Thierry De Mees, I understand you are referring to a neoclassical demonstration of Lorentz's  Transformations that is different from Einstein's demonstration in SR. You are referring to a demonstration based on em fields. You conclude: "this is pure EM theory". You nevertheless neglect an important fact: all space-time transformations, including Lorentz's Transformations, are purely kinematic relations that relate space to time with respect to different  inertial reference frames. These transformations have to guarantee the validity of the Principle of Relativity for all laws of physics with respect to all inertial reference frames. As per you write I understand you are a neoclassical supporter of the theory of ether that for you coincides with em field. You nevertheless neglect another important fact, that is em field exists only if there are sources of that field and this is true in all formulations of Maxwell's equations, including Heaveside who took part in the vector formulation of those equations. Those phisicists were unsure about the existence of ether, in fact in a famous letter Maxwell urged Michelson to achieve the experiment that then proved ether didn't exist. Unfortunately Maxwell died before the realization of the experiment and he didn't know that result. I understand also you don't accept that result but the only way for bringing into question that result it is to repeat the experiment with Michelson's same seriousness.

 Уважаемый Daniele Sasso! Как я понял, Вы являетесь специалистом в области СТО и ОТО. Не считаете ли Вы, что переход от инерциальной системы отсчета (ИСО) к неинерциальной (НСО) есть нечто большее чем кинематика? Мне удалось показать, что в пространстве Минковского не существует удовлетворительного описания даже простейшей жесткой в смысле Борна и релятивистски равноускоренной НСО. Известная система Меллера не является глобально равноускоренной, так как хотя каждая из лагранжевых частиц движется с постоянным ускорением, эти ускорения различны для каждой частицы. Другой альтернативой является является система отсчета заряженной пыли движущейся без начальной скорости в постоянном однородном электрическом поле. Это движение с точки зрения ИСО является классически жестким, но не жестким в релятивистском смысле (смысле Борна). Мною доказана теорема, что в пространстве Минковского невозможно жесткое по Борну равноускоренное движение сплошной среды. Получена метрика для такой системы в псевдоримановом пространстве времени. Эта метрика никак не связана с решением уравнений Эйнштейна, для которого не существует решения для однородного постоянного грав. поля. В электростатике Максвелла такое поле есть. Найденная метрика решает известный парадокс Белла. Подробные результаты изложены здесь в моих статьях и статьях с соавторами.    

Sorry Podosenov, but I don't know your very beautiful language and therefore I cannot answer to your comment. Anyway I hope you and me subscribe some scientific idea about many questions that regard contemporary physics. It seems to me that you are referring to kinematics but I didn't know the meaning. Again sorry. Daniele Sasso

Dear Daniele Sasso: Yes, this Lorentz Transformations' deduction is new. Oleg Jefimenko deduced the LT from the observation of an EM field from a second frame in motion, as explained above. The difference with SR is that mass doesn't increase with velocity, only the object's total energy increases. Also, the fictive transverse mass that Jefimenko finds in “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity” is different from Einstein's in “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”. Moreover, there is no change of the intrinsic value of time, only the EM-clock mechanisms may differ, due to a change of the fields between the charged particles, due to the velocity. Indeed, a plate capacitor with react differently to an imposed velocity as a cylinder capacitor, depending from the direction of the velocity as well.

Finally, matter and “space” don't shrink with velocity, but only the very particles and the emitted fields may be deformed, just as it is the case with EM.

Einstein presented his paper and deduced his LT as if the physics were purely geometrical, and he started by inventing his vision on time and length as geometrical entities. However, it is not a geometrical reality but a physical reality that one measures when EM fields (or gravity fields) are used, and it may only be seen as such when one talks of physics. So, the results depend upon the very physical mechanisms, which are not universal.

Concerning your remarks on aether: indeed, the aether can be seen as coinciding with the pure gravity field (without the magnetic component). That would explain why Michelson haven't got any result. On the Earth's surface, the pure gravity field is static and the aether's velocity is locally zero. The magnetic gravity part may only have bend a bit the light beam, but not altered its frequency.

Akira,

In your reflected light analysis you have forgotten that the lamp has already moved vt before the light is reflected.

Dear Daniele Sasso!

Dear S. A. Podosenov means:

“As I understand it, You are a specialist in the field of SRT and GRT. Don't You think that the transition from the inertial reference system (IRF) to non-inertial (NRF) is more than kinematics? I was able to demonstrate that in Minkowski space does not exist a satisfactory description of even the simplest rigid in the sense of Bourne and relativistic uniformly accelerated NRF. The known Moeller system is not globally uniformly accelerated one, though each Lagrange particle moves with constant acceleration but the acceleration is different for each particle. Another alternative is references frame of a charged dust which moving without initial velocity in a constant homogeneous electric field. This movement is classically hard from the point of view of IRF but not hard in the relativistic sense (Born sense). I have a proof of a theorem that a homogeneously accelerated movement of the continuous medium (hard according to M.Born) does not possible in the Minkowski space-time. Metric function of such the frame was got for pseudo-Riemannian space-time.

This metric is not related to the solution of Einstein's equations, for which there is no permanent solution for homogeneous gravitational. field. Such a field exists In the Maxwell electrostatics . This metric solves a well-known paradox Bella. Detailed results can be found here in my articles and articles with co-authors.”

 Dear Antoine,

>"and what it was shown that HEME equations can be obtained in the weak field approximation of Einstein's description of gravity. the General theory of relativity"

It is quite natural, as all theories must give the same description for weak gravity (observed reality).

However, I doubt that have been or will be detected such effects that follow from GEM for bodies, emitting almost no light:

1) the Dependence of gravity of the test body from its shape.

2) shielding of two bodies from the light should significantly decrease the strength of their attraction to each other and to the Earth.

---

Уважаемый Antoine,

>«что и было показано, что GEM уравнений могут быть получены в приближении слабого поля из эйнштейновское описание гравитации. общей теории относительности»

Это вполне естественно, так как все теории должны давать одинаковое описание для слабой гравитации (для наблюдаемой реальности).

Однако я сомневаюсь, что были или будут  обнаружены такие эффекты, которые следуют из  GEM для тел, почти не излучающих свет:

1) Зависимость притяжения пробного тела от его формы.

2) Экранирование двух  тел от света должно существенно уменьшать силу их притяжения друг к другу и к Земле. 

Ciufolini and Wheeler in their book "Gravitation and Inertia" discuss the Gravitomagnetic field in Chapter 6. On pg.320, just above the Gravitomagnetic equation of motion, (6.1.26), they state that by using the geodesic equation from GRT in the weak field and slow motion limit, (6.1.26) is obtained. Further, they show the Gravitomagnetic field, H, as the curl of a vector potential, h. The vector, h , involves a cross product:  J x x, where x is a position vector, and  J is the angular momentum of a slowly rotating sphere of matter. Page 316, shows that the Gravitomagnetic potential can be picked out from the Weak field and slow motion limit of the Kerr-Newman metric for an uncharged but rotating spherical mass. So it seems to me that Gravitomagnetism is really a linearized theory of GRT in the weak field and low velocity limit. It does not replace GRT but merely augments it.

Akira,

All you have said is what physicists always have agreed upon, viz. “ according to the laws of physics, there is no way to distinguish between an object at rest and an object moving at a constant velocity in an inertial (non-accelerating) reference frame. This means that there really is no “correct answer” to the question “how fast is the “apparatus of this length d move” unless you state that it is moving with velocity v with respect to something that you specify. It does not matter whether “the apparatus” moves or that it is stationary. However if the mirror moves with respect to the lamp or the lamp moves with respect to the mirror you will be able to detect the relative velocity between lamp and mirror with a simple physical measurement..

So where is the beef?

 Свободно падающее тело с ускорением g (по Ньютону) движется по геодезической (по Эйнштейну). Тело, покоящиеся на земле, (по Эйнштейну) сбивается реакцией опоры с геодезической. Оно движутся по мировой линии с ускорением g, направленным по радиусу вверх.  А по Ньютону  абсолютное ускорение для этого тела равно нулю. О каком же принципе соответствия можно говорить?  

I give thanks to Alexander Chepick for Podosenov's translation.

Dear Podosenov, I agree that transformations for different reference frames aren't purely kinematic. In fact in the Theory of Reference Frames, that is my reference theory, I proved for all reference frames, inertial and non-inertial, transition among different reference frames depends also on mass of moving body, besides on time and position. To that end I specified that dependence on the speed of mass is valid only for massive elementary particles but not for ordinary bodies, for which mass is constant when the speed changes. For massive elementary particles it needs to consider a different concept of mass: electrodynamic mass, that changes with the speed. It implies transition between different reference frames, whether inertial or non-inertial, isn't purely kinematic. While in all preceding theories the study of relativity happens in space-time, in the Theory of Reference Frames that study happens in the domain space-mass-time.

Уважаемый Daniele Sasso. Мною получены точные уравнения структуры, которые связывают кривизну пространства-времени с характеристиками движущейся среды: тензором скоростей деформаций, тензором вихря и  полем векторов первой кривизны мировых линий частиц среды. Для равноускоренной жесткой по Борну НСО метрика риманова dS^2=exp{2a_0y^1/c^2)(dy^0)^2-(dy^1)^2-(dy^2)^2-(dy^3)^2. a_0 - величина ускорения в сопутствующей НСО.  Скалярная кривизна R=2(a^0)^2/c^4. Найдена метрика и вращающейся НСО в римановом пространстве-времени, не имеющая горизонта, жесткая в смысле Борна и при радиусе на бесконечности ограниченная скоростью света с. Найдена метрика для статического поля Ньютона ds^2= exp(-r_g/r)(dy^0)^2-r^2((d\theta)^2+sin^2(\theta)(\d\phi)^2) - (dr)^2. Метрика задана в римановом пространстве -времени без связи с ОТО. Уравнения структуры ограничивают область применимости решений уравнений Эйнштейна.