Gravitation and Electromagnetism

[ernst39]

In the paper "GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM - Introduction to the THEORY OF INFORMATONS by Antoine Acke" - published on http://www.wbabin.net/astro/acke2.pdf - a new theory is presented about the phenomena and the laws of the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions.

 

 

The term information is introduced in physics by narrowing its everyday meaning to a physical concept. It is given a specific sense by defining it mathematically.

 

 

The THEORY OF INFORMATONS starts from the idea that a physical object manifests itself in space by emitting informatons. Informatons are dot-shaped mass and energy-less entities that rush away with the speed of light carrying information about the position, the velocity and the electrical charge of the emitter.

 

 

The rules for the emission of informatons by a point mass at rest, and their attributes are defined by the postulate of the emission of informatons.

 

 

The consequences of that postulate for the gravitational interaction are developed in paragraphs I to IV and those for the electromagnetic interaction in paragraph V. The physical entity "field" and the physical quantities that characterise a field (field strenght, induction) acquire a new meaning. The laws to which these quantities are subjected (laws of Maxwell), and the rules that manage the mutual forces (Newton, Coulomb, Lorentz) are deduced. One shows that there is a great analogy between a gravitational and an electromagnetic field, what implies that the gravitational field has a component that is analogous to the magnetic one.

 

 

In paragraph VI the "theory of informatons" is applied in the study of electromagnetic waves and radiation. The idea is introduced that photons are informatons carrying an energy-package. This leads to the view that the deflection of light passing through a narrow slit, can be understood as the visible effect of the transitions of an energy-packet between informatons that crosses each others path. Finally the implications of the gravity-electromagnetism analogy are investigated for the existence of gravitational waves and gravitons.

 

 

Further reading,

 

 

- Antoine Acke - REST MASS AND RELATIVISTIC MASS: a comment on the theory of onformatons, published on http://www.wbabin.net/astro/acke3.pdf

 

- More information about the theory: http://www.antoineacke.net

[ajb]

Are you Antoine Acke?

 

If so, why is this not on the arXiv or even better published in a peer review journal?

 

Anyway, as this is a discussion forum, I suggest you post some of the key ideas and see if we can enter some debate and exchange of ideas.

[ernst39]

Yes I am Antoine Acke, a retired civil electro technical engineer.

 

With the development of the theory of informatons, it was my intention to contribute to a better understanding of the physics studied in textbooks for a calculus based course for science and engineering students by unifying the theories of gravitation and electromagnetism.

 

A detailed exposition of the theory - inclusive all the mathematical derivations - is published in Dutch under the title: GRAVITIE EN ELEKTROMAGNETISME - DE INFORMATONENTHEORIE. People prompted me to use the web to bring my ideas under the attention of a larger audience. This resulted in the publications of papers in Dutch and English (see #1).

 

I am willing to answer any questions and to respond on critical remarks via this forum. I will prepare a message with some of the key ideas of the theory and post it soon.

[ajb]

...by unifying the theories of gravitation and electromagnetism.

 

Classically? (Einstein-Maxwell theory? Kaluza-Klein -type?) or Quantum mechanically?

 

I am very interested in geometric formulations of physics. To me the similarities and difference of classical gravity and electromagnetism started the interest.

 

Anyway,informatons? Particles responsible for the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions?

[ernst39]

The approach is classicaly. The theory is focusing on the macroscopic world.

 

The theory starts from the postulate of the emission of informatons by a point mass at rest in an inertial reference frame (GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM - GEM - §I):

 

1. The rate at which a point mass at rest in an inertial reference frame O is emitting informatons in the space linked to O, is determined by its rest mass.

 

2. Informatons emitted by a point mass at rest rush away from the emitter at the speed of light.

 

3. Their essential attribute is called: the "g-spin-vector" s-g. The orientation of that vector is linked to the position of the emitter, its magnitude is a universal constant. We say that informatons carry "g-information" (this is information related to gravity)

 

4. If the object is electrically charged, the informatons have a second attribute: the "e-spin-vector" s-e. Its orientation is linked to the position of the emitter and to the sign of its charge, its magnitude depends on the charge-per-unit-mass of the emitter. We say that informatons emitted by a charged object carry - besides g-information - "e-information" (this is information related to electricity).

 

In GEM §1 (GEM §5) we show that the gravitational field or the "g-field" (the electric field or the "e-field") of a mass (charge) at rest is the macroscopic manifestation of the flow of g-information (e-information) created and maintained by that mass (charge).

 

In GEM §2 (GEM §5), we explain the interaction between masses (charges) at rest as the effect of the tendency of a mass (charge) to become "blind" for the disturbance of the symmetry of its g-field (e-field) by the extern g-field (e-field) to which it is exposed.

 

In GEM §3,4, we study the effect of the movement of the mass on its emission of informatons. We expand the postulate: The rate at which an object, that - whether or not - is at rest relative to an inertial reference frame O, is emitting informatons in the space linked to O is determined by its rest mass if time is measured on a standard clock in O.

[ajb]

I have not read your theory in any detail, the answers to my questions may be there, but one obvious one:

 

Can you show that your theory reduces to Einstein-Maxwell theory in some limit? (I think not as you have "Maxwell-like" equations for gravity and not "Einstein-like".)

 

 

A quote from your preface

 

Infomatons are dot-shaped entities which rush away with the speed of light carrying information about the position, the velocity and the electrical charge of the emitter.

 

There is no information as such related to the position or velocity. These are not Lorentz invariants. They are not absolute. In fact they have little physical meaning without specifying a reference frame (inertial or not).

 

Can you clear this up for me?

 

An over all comment on the style of your work.

 

1) Why no introduction outlining the short comings of accepted theory? This would motive what you have done.

2) Why are there no references?

3) Why have you said nothing about general relativity? (you do mention gravitons though)

 

I have also noticed that you have pushed this on other science forums.

Edited December 9, 2009 by ajb

[ernst39]

1. Relation to other theories

 

Macroscopically, the informatons emitted by an object constitute its gravitational and (if it is charged) its electromagnetical field. In a point P, the density of the flow of informatons manifests itself as the field strenght E and the density of the cloud of informatons als the induction B.

 

In GEM 3.6, I indicate how the relation between both densities, together with the relation between the g- and the beta-spin-vector of the informatons that pass through P, can be expressed as four "Maxwell-like" equations for gravity.

 

In GEM 4, I explain the interaction between moving masses as the effect of the tendency of a mass to become "blind" for the disturbance of the symmetry of its gravitational field by the extern g-field to which it is exposed. Since the symmetry of its field is charactarized by E + (v x B), the interaction is explained by a "Lorentz-like" force.

 

2. The reference frame

 

All physical quantities, as well those concerning the emitter as those concerning the field, are related to an inertial reference frame O. In particular (REST MASS AND RELATIVISTIC MASS - MASS 4):

 

- The rate at which a point mass in an inertial frame O is emitting informatons in the space linked to O is determined by its rest mass if time is measured by a standard clock in O.

 

- It is determined by its relativistic mass, if time is measured by a standard clock in O'. O' is the inertial reference frame that - at the considered moment - moves relative to O at the same velocity as the mass.

 

3. Comments

 

- By introducing "information" as a physical quantity", it was my intention to present a new consistent theory about the phenomena and the laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, not to critisize accepted theories. I leave it to the reader of my papers to compare the "theory of informatons" with accepted theories.

 

- There are no references, because the theory is original.

 

- In GEM 6.9, I make allusion on the problem of the interaction gravity-photon. Later, I will profoundly treat this issue.

 

 

 

quote: I have also noticed that you have pushed this on other science forums

 

Indeed, I believe in the posibilities of the web to confront my ideas with those of other people.

[ajb]

By introducing "information" as a physical quantity", it was my intention to present a new consistent theory about the phenomena and the laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, not to critisize accepted theories. I leave it to the reader of my papers to compare the "theory of informatons" with accepted theories.

 

I think you should. It not only shows that you do understand current thinking, it also means that the reader gets a better understanding of what you are doing and importantly why.

 

 

- There are no references, because the theory is original.

 

I think it shows that you have not spent any time trying to understand accepted theories and current trends and ideas in physics. This is not the way to impress anyone.

 

Also, physics works by building on ideas and theories that are accepted. You cannot just ignore or throw out the hard work of many other people. It just does not work like that.

 

 

quote: I have also noticed that you have pushed this on other science forums

 

Indeed, I believe in the posibilities of the web to confront my ideas with those of other people.

 

I have found generally the web to be full of rubbish. Other than the arXiv I tend not to read "papers" that people publish themselves. The only real chance you have of getting an educated and interested audience is to get a sponsor to agree that the paper is worthy and then place it on the arXIv. Or better still peer-review journal.

 

To do that your ideas need to be formulated well and written up in an acceptable way. This includes references.

 

Placing stuff on forums just won't cut it.

[ernst39]

Some comments on reply #8 of ajb

 

1. As I wrote in reply #3, the first intention of my work is to contribute to a better understanding of the physics studied in textbooks for a calculus based course for science and engineering students.

 

2. I believe that thinking about physical phenomena from another angle of incidence than that of accepted theories, is not wrong. The "theory of informatons" is - just like all other theories in physics - a construct of the reason. It is a mathematically supported logical system devised to understand - in a simple and consistent manner - all phenomena relative to gravity and electromagnetism that are treated in the context of point 1.

 

3. To my knowledge, there are no references for the introduction of "information" as a physical quantity, nor for the way I derive the physical laws from that definition. The phenomena and the laws what it is about, are treated in every textbook. Is it not exaggeration to judge the lack of references as a lack of respect for the hard work of many other people?

 

4. I agree with you that there is a lot of rubbish on the web, but - in my opinion - that doesn't mean that all what there is published deserves to be ignored. Anyway, thanks for your very quick responses and for your advice in connection with the style of my work.

[Baby Astronaut]

In the paper "GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM - Introduction to the THEORY OF INFORMATONS by Antoine Acke" - published on http://www.wbabin.net/astro/acke2.pdf - a new theory is presented....

Antoine, it's definitely not a theory yet, more like a hypothesis. For example no one's tested or peer reviewed it -- or even made consensus on any findings. Just letting you know so we're all on the same page.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I love how someone has to make that point in every thread like this regardless of whether they have something substantive to say about the hypothesis itself.

 

(For future reference: can we avoid another argument on whether something is a hypothesis or a theory? What matters to me, and likely most other people, is whether it makes sense and can be shown to be correct, regardless of what we call it.)

[Baby Astronaut]

I love how someone has to make that point in every thread like this regardless of whether they have something substantive to say about the hypothesis itself.

Can't, not enough info. I was just trying to help avoid communication breakdown, which happens often enough if people with different definitions of *theory* are discussing one.

[ajb]

3. To my knowledge, there are no references for the introduction of "information" as a physical quantity, nor for the way I derive the physical laws from that definition. The phenomena and the laws what it is about, are treated in every textbook. Is it not exaggeration to judge the lack of references as a lack of respect for the hard work of many other people?

 

 

There is of course Shannon's information theory which very much resembles statistical physics. I do not know if your definition of information is the same or related to that of information theory.

 

The corpuscular theory of light is attributed to Newton. (Though, remember electromagnetism was not understood at this point, so Newton would not have though that light was related to forces.)

 

The thirteenth-century Italian Franciscan alchemist Geber constructed a corpuscular hypothesis. Similarly, the Greeks had atomism.

 

Also Le Sage's theory of gravitation used tiny particles to explain Newtonian theory of gravity.

 

So, you see the idea of tiny particles as transmitting forces is not new and classically has been considered. This is different to the questions of quantisation.

 

Your theory looks similar to Le Sage's theory of gravitation, which has been shown to violate the principle of conservation of energy. This, I think your theory may also fail. Have a think about this.

Edited December 12, 2009 by ajb

[Bignose]

I love how someone has to make that point in every thread like this regardless of whether they have something substantive to say about the hypothesis itself.

 

(For future reference: can we avoid another argument on whether something is a hypothesis or a theory? What matters to me, and likely most other people, is whether it makes sense and can be shown to be correct, regardless of what we call it.)

 

Cap'n, you are a moderator here, and how you want to run the forum is up to you and the other mods.

 

But, I think that it is very important to use the words correctly, especially on a science forum. As per other threads, we don't let people misuse the words force and energy and momentum and the like. We don't let people misrepresent what that the theory or evolution says, or what the theory or gravity says.

 

Allowing one to misuse the word theory is inconsistent with almost everything else this forum does.

 

In general, can the explanation of the proper use of the word be better? It sure can. Have sometimes the post that points out the incorrect usage of the word sometimes been rude? It sure has.

 

(For the record, I think that BA here definitely wasn't rude, but could have done a better job explaining why the word hypothesis is more scientifically correct than the word theory.)

 

But, I think that it is still very important to instill the correct use of the word in any place where science is to be discussed. And that includes the Speculations section.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oh, I do not dispute that if someone insists on using "momentum" incorrectly, they should be corrected or confusion will reign. But with a word like "theory," where it merely labels an idea rather than contributing to that idea's true meaning, it's less necessary.

 

I speak out of frustration at seeing numerous threads in Speculations turn into "it's a hypothesis!" "no, it's a theory!" with no discussion of the actual hypothesis in question. If we can point correct incorrect use of words, fine, but let's avoid discussions of semantics instead of content.

[toastywombel]

Cap'n, you are a moderator here, and how you want to run the forum is up to you and the other mods.

 

But, I think that it is very important to use the words correctly, especially on a science forum. As per other threads, we don't let people misuse the words force and energy and momentum and the like. We don't let people misrepresent what that the theory or evolution says, or what the theory or gravity says.

 

Allowing one to misuse the word theory is inconsistent with almost everything else this forum does.

 

In general, can the explanation of the proper use of the word be better? It sure can. Have sometimes the post that points out the incorrect usage of the word sometimes been rude? It sure has.

 

(For the record, I think that BA here definitely wasn't rude, but could have done a better job explaining why the word hypothesis is more scientifically correct than the word theory.)

 

But, I think that it is still very important to instill the correct use of the word in any place where science is to be discussed. And that includes the Speculations section.

 

Theory-

-a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

-hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a -scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

 

(notice: hypothesis is included on the google definition of theory)

 

Hypothesis-

-a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations

-a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"

 

I agree Bignose that it is important to define words accurately however, the difference between hypothesis and theory is simply the fact that a theory has been tested and has held up through testing. This is an important difference, but to point that out in this thread is very distracting from the original topic.

 

Furthermore, according to the above definition should we refer to "string theory" as the "string hypothesis" from now on because it has never been tested? Of course not, it would be audaciously ridiculous. It is quite easy for the reader to understand what the initial post is about without he/she having to pick apart the semantics, such as whether it is a hypothesis or a theory.

 

I think it is time to bring focus back to the op. You can debate whether this should be a theory or hypothesis in a different post perhaps, instead we should provide insight and constructive thought into the Gravitation and Electromagnetism: THEORY OF INFORMATONS by Antoine Acke.

[ernst39]

1. In the theory of informatons, the term "information" is introduced in physics by narrowing its everyday meaning to a physical concept. It is given a specific sense by defining it mathematically. This approach to define a physical quantity is a tradition in physics: think of "force", "work, "current", "charge", "field", ... .

 

We assume (this is an hypothesis)that the elementary amount of (g-)information is carried by a "particle": the informaton which is defined by its attributes. From that definition we mathematically derive the known laws of gravitation (and electromagnetism). So, we develop a theory to explain the phenomena of gravitation (and electromagnetism). That theory implies that the gravitational field of a moving (relative to an inertial reference frame) object should have a component that is analogous to the magnetic component of the electromagnetic field. It must be able to test this conclusion, that probably can explain certain anomalies in the orbits of the planets as they are predicted by Newton laws.

 

 

2. Although both depart from the idea that "particles" are involved in the phenomenon of gravitation, Le Sage's theory and the theory of informatons have a completely different view on the origin and the nature of the particles, and on the mechanism of interaction.

 

- Le Sage's theory (article Wikepedia)

• gravitational particles originate beyond the known universe
  
• gravitational particles are defined mechanically
  
• the phenomenon of gravitational interaction results from matter-particle collisions.
  

 

- Theory of informatons (GEM §1)

• a material object (observed in an inertial reference frame) manifest its substantiality (its materiality) by emitting informatons
  
• informatons are dot-shaped mass and energy less entities, that rush away at the speed of light carrying information
  
• Macroscopically, the informatons emitted by an object constitute its gravitational field (its g-field). Gravitational interaction between masses is understood as the effect of the tendency of a mass to become "blind" for the disturbance of the symmetrie of its g-field by the extern g-field to which it is exposed.
  

 

The violation of the principle of conservation of energy by Le Sage's theory is probably caused by the hypotheses concerning the nature of the gravitational particles and the way they interact with matter.

[ajb]

2. Although both depart from the idea that "particles" are involved in the phenomenon of gravitation, Le Sage's theory and the theory of informatons have a completely different view on the origin and the nature of the particles, and on the mechanism of interaction.

 

Maybe so, however you should make some reference to Le Sage's theory and in particular more recent works. Anyone reading your work will be instantly reminded of Le Sage and quantum gravity viz gravitons.

 

 

 

...informatons are dot-shaped mass and energy less entities, that rush away at the speed of light carrying information...

 

So, they have no mass and no energy? What about momentum?

 

As this is all classical don't we require the mass shell-condition to be satisfied? That said, I am not very clear if your information particles are observable.

 

Anyway, I think these are very strange particles indeed. How do they fit into Wigner's classification of elementary particles? (I guess it does not).

 

The violation of the principle of conservation of energy by Le Sage's theory is probably caused by the hypotheses concerning the nature of the gravitational particles and the way they interact with matter.

 

So, can you say if your theory suffers the same fate or not? If not, then you can make a clear statement that your theory goes one step beyond La Sage.

 

Have a look at a paper by Roberto de Andrade Martins: Gravitational absorption according to the hypotheses

of Le Sage and Majorana. Pp. 239-258 in: EDWARDS, Matthews R. (ed.). Pushing

Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation. Montreal: Apeiron,

2002.

 

An electronic version can be found at http://ghtc.ifi.unicamp.br/pdf/ram-89.pdf

 

I think you will find it interesting.

 

La Sage's theory supposes that the universe is full of particles responsible for the gravitational interaction. Quirino Majorana proposed a similar theory but in which the particles are emitted by matter. Your theory is similar to both of these, but in particular Majorana's.

Edited December 13, 2009 by ajb

[ernst39]

1. When I referred in reply #17 to informatons, I put the term "particle" in brackets to indicate its special meaning in the context of the theory of informatons.

 

An informaton is a dot-shaped entity defined by its essential attributes: velocity and g-spin-vector:

• Dot-shaped: it occupies no space, it has no geometric dimensions
  
• Velocity: it moves relative to an inertial reference frame with the speed of light in a direction that is linked to the position of the emitter
  
• g-spin-vector: it carries the elementary amount of g-information
  

So, in the context of the gravitational interaction, the informaton is a carrier of g-information and of nothing else. It will not be influenced when it passes through matter.

 

2. The results of the theory of informatons don't violate the principle of conservation of energy. That follows from the mathematical form of the force laws and of the fact that informatons themselve are energy less.

 

3. I think that the crucial question is: Is it - for the physicians - acceptable to introduce the concept of "information" as a (new) physical quantity to explain and unify gravitation and electromagnetism?

 

4. It takes for me some time to read in detail the paper by Roberto de Andrade Martens. I will certainly do it during the next days.

[Klaynos]

Did you know that information was already a physical thing?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

 

One of the results of this is limiting the storage space that can theoretically fit into a laptop...

[ajb]

... for the physicians ...

 

Physicists.

 

I am uneasy about the idea of no energy but carrying momentum. For massless particles this means [math]p \neq E[/math] (set c=1). This maybe ok, the particles are necessarily off mass-shell. The particles are virtual. This is not allowed in classical mechanics, so you theory resembles quantum theory.

 

We also have to worry about what happens under Lorentz transformations. Energy-momentum is the important thing, not energy or momentum separately. Thus, again I am worried about no energy and some momentum.

 

Classically I am sure having momentum but no energy is impossible. (Not even sure if quantum mechanically it makes sence)

Edited December 13, 2009 by ajb

[ernst39]

1. In the context of the theory of informatons, the term "information" has a very specific meaning, not to be confused with sensorial information (sound, images, data, ...) that can be digitalized.

 

2. Whether it is a real or an hypothetical entity, the introduction of the informaton is intended to construct an alternative but consistent (and more simple?) theory about the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

 

3. Informatons mediate in the interaction between masses

 

To illustrate here how that works we consider the special case of a system of two masses m and m' anchored in the points P and P' of an inertial reference frame O. Each mass is an emitter of g-information and creates and maintains a g-field. The effective g-field in a point Q is the superposition of the two g-fields and is completely charactarised by the vector E. E, the "field (strenght)" in Q, determines the density of the g-information flow in that point.

 

Each mass is "immersed" in a cloud of g-information. In each point, except the point where it is anchored, each mass contributes to the construction of that cloud.

 

Let us consider the mass m in P. If the other mass m' were not there, then m would be at the centre of a perfectly spherical cloud of g-information. In reality this is not the case: the emission of g-information by m' is responsible for the disturbance of that symmetry and the extend of disturbance in the direct vicinity of m is proportional to E in P. Indeed, E in P represents the density of the flow of g-information send to P by m'.

 

If it is free to move (not anchored at P), the point mass m can restore the spherical symmetry of the g-information cloud in his direct vicinity: it suffices to accelerate relative to O with an amount a = E. Accelerating in this way has the effect that the extern field disappears in the origin of the reference frame that is anchored to m. If it accelerates that way, the mass becomes "blind" for the g-information send by m' to P, it "sees" only its own spherical g-information cloud.

 

These insights are expressed as follows: A free point mass m acquieres in a point of a gravitational field an acceleration a = E so that the g-information cloud in its direct vicinity shows spherical symmetry relative to its position.

 

A point mass which is anchored in a gravitational field cannot accelerate. In that case it TENDS to move.

 

Conclusion: A point mass anchored in a point of a gravitational field is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by E, the field strenght in that point. Once the anchorage is broken, the mass acquiers a vectorial acceleration a that equals E.

 

These idea's are further developed in GEM §II and in GEM §IV. In any case, it is clear that the mechanisme discribed above, not requiers that informatons have momentum.

 

4. Informatons and the SRT

 

In the paper REST MASS AND RELATIVISTIC MASS, I show:

 

- The rate at which a point mass at rest in an inertial frame O is emitting informatons in the space linked to O is determined by its rest mass if time is measured by a standard clock in O.

 

- It is determined by its relativistic mass, if time is measured by a standard clock in O'. O' is the inertial reference frame that - at the moment considered - moves relative to O at the same velocity as the point mass.

 

- The linear momentum of a point mass is the product of its relativistic mass and its velocity.

 

- A point mass with relativistic mass m is equivalent with an amount of energy m*c-square.

 

In the dissertation from which the papers are excerpts, I derive the expressions of the field strenght and of the induction in relativistic circumstances, and the gravitation interaction law.

Edited December 15, 2009 by ernst39

[ernst39]

In contrast to the predictions of the kinetic models of gravitation such as Le Sage's and Majorana's (reply # 18 - ajb), the theory of informatons predicts that it not should be possible to reduce the gravitational force between two bodies by the use of material shields. This follows directly from the fact that informatons are mass and energy less entities.

 

In a point P just above the surface of the earth, the gravitational field of the earth is E = g.

 

Let us consider a large uniform sheet of mass with a density of <sigma> kg per square meter. Symmetry tells us that its gravitational field E' is everywhere perpendicular to the sheet and is pointing to it, and that it is constant in magnitude over any surface parallel to the sheet. Using Gauss's law we obtain the magnitude of the gravitational field of the sheet: E' = <sigma>/2.<eta-0>. In the special case of a lead plate of 1 m thick: E' = 4,85 micronewton/kg.

 

 

1. According to the theory of informatons, the effective gravitational field in P is the superposition of the field created and maintained by the different emitters of informatons:

• With a uniform sheet beneath P, the magnitude of the effectieve field in P is: E + E'
  
• With the sheet above P: it is E - E'
  
• With P between two identical sheets, there is no effect: E = g
  

This implies that the weight W = m.g of a spherical body with mass m in P increases with an amount m.E' when there is a uniform sheet beneath P, and decreases with the same amount when the sheet is above P.

 

So according to the theory of informatons, the weight in P of a (lead) sphere of 1 kg should increase with an amount of about 4,85 micronewton = 0,49 mgf when a lead plate of 1m thick was beneath P. It should decrease with the same amount when the plate was above.

 

 

2. If we anchored the plate horizontal at a fixed location, we can investigate how the weight of the sphere of 1 kg depends on its position relative to the plate. According to the theory of informatons, in a point P at the centre of the plate E = g.

 

Due to the presence of the plate:

- Above the plate the field should increase with an amount E'

- Beneath the plate it should decrease with the same amount.

 

Due to the position of the plate:

- A point above the plate is 0,5 m further away from the centre of the earth: so the field above the plate should decrease (relative to the field in the centre of the plate) with an amount: E" = g/R = 1,54 micronewton/kg = 0,16 mgf (R is the radius of earth)

- In a point beneath the plate (0,5 m closer to the centre of the earth) the field should increase with the same amount.

 

The effective gravitational field in a point is the superposition of the field created and maintained by the different emitters of informatons. We obtain:

• In a point above the plate: E + E' - E" = g + 3,31 micronewton/kg
  
• In a point beneath the plate: E - E' + E" = g - 3,31 micronewton/kg
  

 

So when a sphere of 1 kg is above the lead plate, according to the theory of informatons its weight should increase by about 3,31 micronewton = 0,33 mgf, and when it is beneath the plate it would decrease by about 3,31 micronewton = 0,33 mgf. As for the order of magnitude, this corresponds with the results of Majorana (article of Roberto de Andrade Martins - reply # 18)

 

 

The theory of informatons however cannot explain that the decrease of weight of the sphere above the plate is smaller than the increase beneath it. I think that this anomaly has nothing to do with gravitation on the sphere, but that it is an effect of Archimedes law and would not occur if the measurement was done in vacuum. Indeed, the upward force of Archimedes decreases with the height above the surface of the earth and so reduces the weight of the sphere more beneath the plate than above it. A rough calculation proves that the decrease with height of the density of air is cause of a decrease of the upward force with an amount of 0,00x mgf/meter.

Edited December 19, 2009 by ernst39
Consecutive posts merged.

[ernst39]

The theory of informatons also applies in relativistic situations. This is illustrated in the article "The gravitational interaction between moving masses", published on http://vixra.org/class/ (viXra: 1002.0049).

All comments are welcome.

[ernst39]

In 1998, the American astronomer Tom Van Flandern published a paper in Physics Letters A 250:1-11 titled "The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say".

 

 

In the paragraph "Fact: Gravity has no Aberration", he notes "Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions": the movement of objects in the heavens reacts to their present positions and not to their light-speed delayed positions. He comes to the conclusion "that gravitational fields, even "static" ones, continually regenerate through entities that must propagate at some very high speed", not "less than 2xE10 c".

 

 

Regarding the continuous regeneration of the gravitational field, the theory of informatons is consistent with this conclusion, but this is not the case regarding the speed of gravity.

 

 

Indeed, in 1.2 and 1.3 of GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN MOVING MASSES ( http://www.wbabin.net/astro/acke4.pdf ) is shown that E-g, the field of a point mass that moves with constant velocity relative to an inertial reference frame O, points to the present position of the mass and not to its light-speed delayed position. This is the macroscopic effect of the deviation (the "characteristic angle") of the g-spin vector s-g of an informaton relative to the direction of its movement (and of the photons transported by the informatons).

 

 

Conclusion: The fact that "Gravity has no aberration" is not a sufficient reason to posit that the speed of gravity differs from the speed of light.