With the theory of informatons, I start from the idea that the E.M. and the gravitational field are constituted by a common constituent. I define that constituent and deduce all the phenomena and laws from that definition.I like this idea, but don't see why you need to create a new entity. You can get to the same place by simply modifying the the way we think of photons. [:)]
How would I imagine a informaton? Do you have a mental concept of it?
In the article "Electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons" (http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0114 (http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0114)) the electromagnetic phenomena and interactions are explained by the hypothesis that "information" (more accurate: "e-information") is the substance of the electromagnetic field. The constituent element of that substance is called "an informaton".We could call them; "Infotrons", or maybe, "Infomats". Nah............Let's just continue to call them "Photons".
I suppose that a photon is an energy package transported by a carrier (§VI,5). I call that carrier an "informaton".I'm sorry to inform you but in essence all you did is rename the photon. The particle that carries EM energy is by definition the photon.
The rate at which an object emits informatons depends only on his rest mass and not on his state of motion or on his electrical charge, factors that are essential for the emission of energy packages.That is incorrect. It's the temperature of the body which determines the rate at which a body emits energy, not the rest mass.
A (whether or not charged) object at rest or describing a uniform motion doesn't emit energy packages at all.That too is incorrect. Have you never heard of the battery powered laser pointer? It can be at rest in the inertial frame S and emit photons.
That implies that, in the case of interactions between masses and between charges at rest or uniformly moving, there are no photons available.Untrue for the above reasons. Plus you need to understand that all you did is to rename photon as "informaton".
In &6 of the article, I identify an "informaton carrying an energy package" with a "photon". I don't believe that this is contrary to the classical definition, it's a specification.Why bother doing this at all?
... a particle manifests its substantiallity ...What on Earth does "manifests its substantiality" mean?
"by emitting informatons"You're doing yourself a disservice by renaming photons because you perceive them to be something different than the scientific community. When I see people to this it comes across as pseudoscience and the author is a crackpot. Is that the way you wish to be perceived? If not then please stop giving new names to old objects.
If an electrically charged particle is accelerated it is a source of EM energy.This is off topic from what you're quoting. I was commenting on your claim that
The rate at which an object emits informatons depends only on his rest mass and not on his state of motion or on his electrical charge, factors that are essential for the emission of energy packages.This appears to contradict what you just posted, i.e. If an electrically charged particle is accelerated it is a source of EM energy.
The temperature of a body is a macroscopic measure for the movements (oscillations) of the constituent particles on microscopic level.So what? If you were excluding macroscopic objects from your assertions then you should have stated that. But that's not what you implied when in your first post you wrote "The "theory of informatons" starts from the idea that a physical object manifests itself in space by emitting INFORMATONS." So you do speak of objects emitting photons.
The source of the emission of EM energy are accelerating particles at the microscopic level.You're mistaken. There are other ways that EM energy is produced such as what I mentioned above, i.e. atoms transitioning from a higher energy level to a lower energy level emitting photons in the process. Nuclear reactions are another example.
I did not rename the "photon" (see reaction on quote1).I missed something in my first read which I just caught. You claim that this thing called an information travels at the speed of light but has no energy. There's no such thing as a particle with such properties. Did you think you could simply "define" particles into existence? That's just plain nonsense. You're not talking about science anymore. You've sunken into the depths of science-fiction.
I have introduced the informaton as the constituent element of gravitational and EM fields.You're acting like a crackpot now. See:
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.You failed to properly define "constituent element" as used in this context. Since gravitational and EM fields have energy and your informatons don't then "constituent element" is nonsense.
And I don't discuss with persons who are biased.Everyone has some degree of bias even if only a very small degree. I have opinions and so do you. But in our forum, discussion is necessary if we are ever expected to learn and or share. Don't just ignore someone simply because they have differing views than you have. If they are reasonable and you are too, there is always the opportunity for one or both persons to learn. Frankly, that is what this forum should be about for every member that participates here. Even the brightest amongst us still has something to learn.
I agree with you. I have no problems to discuss with reasonable people who have differing views and/or a different background than me, but I assume that a serious discussion requires a minimum of respect.Yeah, but you've defined reasonable people as those people who agree with you and that's the problem. The fact is that I'm a very reasonable person when it comes to discussing physics. When it comes to people who insult me because I disagree with them then its a whole new ball of wax. And while I can't speak for others I can speak for myself and in my case I respect others until they stop being respectful to me because I prove them wrong or disagree with them and that's the case here.
Yeah, but you've defined reasonable people as those people who agree with youWhere do you find that "definition"?
A friend of mine was over this Saturday. I showed him your paper and he agreed with me that it was written by a crackpot. And this friend is far from being just your average everyday physicist. He's last years winner of the Kavli prize in Astrophysics: http://www.kavlifoundation.org/kavli-prizeThank your friend in my name because he had spent time for the evaluation of the work of a "crackpot".
Where do you find that "definition"?Everyone here is intelligent enough to know that the way and what you post implies that's what you mean by it. Just ask them.
Most certainly EM and gravitation are related. Both of them are distributed through the same space and obey inverse-square law. Even child can tell that they are somehow related :D
But informatons... nah.. I'm more like a ether believer 8D
you are right on. gravity is em force
There is a new version of the article "Gravitoelectromagnetism explained by the theory of informatons" on Research Gate.
There is no electo-magnetism involved in gravity