pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Good try.
And, no, EGH is no way doing math. Not even arithmetics.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


“I have seen no experiments and no data. At best, you are doing math. “ I fully agree, I also wondered how pj could have massive objects moving at the speed of light in vacuum, show us the data, experiments!!! I thought such speeds only was for massless particles, light!
pj math:
"b) a 90000=300^2 more massive thing turns in same circle 300000 km (a speed of light in vacuum) away.""




EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Not even arithmetics."
which of my specific derivations you claim is wrong? if you have found typos or incorrect calculations I would appreciate your constructive comments as always.
also hope you can clarify your massive objects moving at the speed of light. 




pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


tsk, tsk, being deliberately obtuse, EGH? I put some more values in the case.
If there are anymore missing, please feel free to fill in your own. The gist stays the same: The gravitation is instantaneous in Newton mechanics.
> which of my specific derivations you claim is wrong? the finite speed of gravity.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


I see u have updated your diffuse question now to a more precise question/example, you only had to do two edits to be able to explain your toypoints I see ;)
"A toy example. If one uses the Newton's formula, in both cases
a) A massive thing turns in a circle 1000 km away,
b) a 90000=300^2 more massive thing turns in 300 times larger circle with the same angular velocity 300000 km (a speed of light in vacuum) away.
the gravity effect will be absolutely the same. Action at the distance, square law etc."
Well the gravity force is very different on different distance due to inverse square rule. And if you change the value of c in the field equation (I already showed you why it is there) you change both values.
Also unclear why you mention "massive thing". In the most basic Newton m must be insignificant to M, if not you have a real two body problem, where u not can cancel out m in the derivations for the observable phenomena. U need to change gravity parameter in a two body problem (where m is signifiant large to also affect M). "A massive thing turns " so if massive we must expect it to be significant to M, in other words you are over in two body problem, or why on earth else would you throw out such statements? Do you perhaps need to do a third edit to your "toy example"?
Interestingly if we actually take into account Mercury's small mass, and not only the Sun's mass we get same prediction from Newton as from GR it looks like, in other words if we work with real two body problem:
https://web.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/20/2047.pdf
" Newtonian framework is more powerful than researchers and astronomers were thinking till now"
GR assume supposedly speed of gravity is speed of light. And for Newton gravity researchers supposedly assume speed of gravity infinite. We must therefore discuss phenomena where GR and Newton predicts different results to evidently show there is a difference due to the different in assumptions. Some of the best standard differences one could discuss
perihelion of mercury, this is assumed observation that showed Newton incompatible, and correctly predicted by GR. Corada now seems to have shown Newton will do just as good as GR if one take into account it is actually a real two body problem, not a one body problem.
Deflection of light. Well then the small mass m is moving at the speed of light, so this is to take into account relativistic effects of the small mass affected in addition to assume the speed of gravity moves at speed of light. Also several of the Newton derivations getting 1/2 of GR are evidently wrong as they use kinetic energy formula 1/2mv^2 which we know only is valid for v. So one must distinguish between having a model assuming gravity moving at speed equal to that of light and that of not having done proper relativistic adjustments for m (and in some cases for M).
Gravitational redshift, well this was shown by Adler and Bazin in 1965 that also could be derived from Newton combined with simply conservation of energy. Get hold of the book, they are not light weighers in gravity theory. Gravitational time dilation directly linked to gravitational redshift so same.
etc.
So your toy example are in my view not convincing, it is not clear what you try to show, except toying around!




nikol


Total Posts: 1352 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Can Admin move this thread to trashcan?
I experience physical pain reading this. 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 



pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


@nicol you are not obligated to read the thread. I see it as a fine example of cognitive dissonance.
@EGH My editing hasn't helped. Nowhere I was referring to the change of the speed of light. And, I'm talking about a gravity effect on, say, on point mass. Please, don't put words into my mouth and do not dodge the problem.
Son, I'm dissapoint.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


nikol


Total Posts: 1352 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@pj
Let me observe your effort of gargantuan scale.

... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 



nikol


Total Posts: 1352 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@pj
Let me observe your effort of gargantuan scale.

... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 


EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"@nicol you are not obligated to read the thread. I see it as a fine example of cognitive dissonance.
@EGH My editing hasn't helped. Nowhere I was referring to the change of the speed of light. And, I'm talking about a gravity effect on, say, on point mass. Please, don't put words into my mouth and do not dodge the problem.
Son, I'm dissapoint. "
"Nowhere I was referring to the change of the speed of light. " Clearly not, and I never said so. But I have demonstrated c is in the field equation and in Newton gravity force formula, so if the speed of gravity not is the experimental observed speed of light, or the experimental observed speed of gravity then you get totally different values. But ignore that for a moment. Do you you not understand you need to point out one example where Newton give different predictions than GR, and in addition the effect can not be due to relativistic effects in the mass, or due to ignoring two body problems.
So which one of the known GR predictions that are different than Newton are you talking about? Because for predictions where GR and even Naive use of Newton give the same predictions then the speed of gravity cannot have any effect according to standard theory. Or have you made a new toydiscovery here?
"on point mass." and in addition " A massive thing". Fine yes standard physics have that masses are point particles, so okay, but you have still not even mention why you say "" A massive thing", only way I can interpret this without further corrections from you is that this mass has significant mass relative to M, so a two body problem you are talking about?





pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Double post 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Two body problem? Not exactly, the distant and the massive one moves on its own volition (rocket perhaps). The point particle is small. In both cases the Newtonian mechanics postulates the same effect to the small particle.
In contradiction to the General Relativity. Get it? 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


okay so it seems you talk about when M is moving away or toward m, this is not covered in basic Newton, that has not to do with not taking into account the speed of gravity, it has to do with assuming M keeps the same distance to m. Also relativistic effects on m and M is not taken into account in Newton, this do not mean Newton not concealed contains speed of gravity must be c.
"The point particle is small." the standard definition of a point particle is that it has zero spatial dimension, so no big surprise that it is small, hard to get smaller than that, ha ha... well I guess you mean its mass is small.
Funny series of common GR phenomena can be predicted only from one constant, the Planck length, while all Newton phenomena needs c and lp, that is after we have decomposed the composite constant G and also looked at M at deeper level, study the paper and you see. (well we could argue other way around, but based on some very other arguments than have been presented here)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/23996528/abe4c8 



pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


>this is not covered in basic Newton

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


For example we can look at redshift from also Newton, by calculating redshift based on conservation of energy. Then for example when looking at Supernovas with redshift, then M (supernova) is moving relative to observer, we must adjust for motion of M naturally. How far is M moving during the time it takes for light to travel from Supernova until it reach observer (earth). For example have Brissenden 2020 recently pointed out how Davis and Lineweaver 2004 have ignored this and then mistakenly thought relativistic adjusted Newton is totally off, big mistake!.
Brissenden, S. 2020: “Matching Supernova Redshifts with Special Relativity and no Dark Energy,” J. of the Roy. Astr. Soc. of Can., 114, 67.
If one take this into account and add relativistic mass to Newton we even get rid of dark energy fantasy. Here we need relativistic adjustments in addition as M is moving very fast, not v insignificant relative to c. High Z supernovas.
In Newton gravity force formula the large mass is not moving away or toward m, if one have such scenarios one must make simple adjustments for also this, naturally dependent on what one are observing, type of gravity observations etc.. In pure Newton the small mass m is moving around M, or we could look at it as M moving around m, in both cases R is constant, if going away from this we need to make accordingly adjustments. This do not mean speed of gravity do not play a role when R is constant between 2 objects, of c_g=0 then gravity field is zero no matter distance, if c_g=infinity then gravity field is infinite strong no matter distance. Only c_g=c (experimentally observed value of light) gives correct predictions.
Gravity is directly linked to the Compton frequency in matter. That is we have a "clock" that directly is linking time to a particle’s mass!!! Why we seem to have embedded the time derivative in the Poisson equation. 



pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


>In Newton gravity force formula the large mass is not moving away or toward
Can't the two body problem be solved then?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


sure, why there is several adjustments there relative to the original Newton formula, and also adjustments towards the 1873 adjusted Newton formula (that researchers incorrectly calls the Newton gravity force formula today).
My paper is not about the two body problem, even if I briefly points out the gravity parameter then as known is changed from mu=GM to mu=GM_1+GM_2 which is important to understand the collisiontime mass.
We have GMm in no formula that actually predicts observable gravity phenomena, GM at least in all the phenomena looked at in the paper. Gravity is caused by Compton frequency in matter, and one must understand this frequency in detail. Matter is Compton clocks! And the speed of the gravity particles play a central role for the internal Compton frequency in all matter, and it is c.
That there is painted an elephant on a car dose not mean the car is an elephant, one must dig a bit deeper before understanding it is a car and how it operates!




 

pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> Proof That Newton Gravity Moves at the Speed of Light and Not Instantaneous (Infinite Speed) as Thought!
Where is the proof in that paper of yours?
If the Newton's law of gravity holds, the infinite speed of gravity holds as well. My example demonstrates that. Enough said.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"> Proof That Newton Gravity Moves at the Speed of Light and Not Instantaneous (Infinite Speed) as Thought!" "Where is the proof in that paper of yours? "
you very well know my very humble nature, so I changed the draft title to a better and very humble title before publish. (you know the proof is in the pudding, u just have to taste it, and more than just the title!).
Stay tuned! much more published on gravity soon! Non of you can escape gravity! 




quantie


Total Posts: 908 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Espen we still have to revisit the idea of piping mkt data in to create electronic dance music.




nikol


Total Posts: 1352 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@quantie
It's there https://www.bitlisten.com/ 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Yes, Dance Baby Dance!
By the way there is 13.8 billion years of aggregated collisions time for every Planck time inside our Hubble sphere.
F Big Bang
more than a year since I have been to a real electronic dance party! sucks! 



pj


Total Posts: 3604 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Not interested. Sorry, EGH

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


