EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


not sure what your point is?
99% of researchers thinks Newton formula implies infinite gravity speed in Newton gravity, this u can see from series of papers and books, examples:
"“We may fairly conclude that a finite rate of propagation of gravitation is inconsistent with Newton’s inverse square law or any other force that is function of distance only.” Journal of American Physics
"“In Newton’s theory of gravity, perturbations of the gravitational field propagate at infinite speed.” journal of Physics"
I prove this very clearly is totally wrong, they stare at G that they invented in 1873 without understanding what G truly represent...if u do not understand my proofs or not want to understand them, u can anyway not understand them without study them carefully...then just good luck to u!
I suspect some qualified referees will understand, after some more polishing I will submit to journal, but to publish takes time, for it to get influence on the many lost researchers take even more time, could easily take years..
This is also why they very incorrectly think the Planck units only can be found from G by dimensional analysis despite they have spend millions of dollars trying to detect Planck scale
The Planck scale has always been in front of their nose. U can feel the Planck scale every second, it drags your arse towards the ground. Gravity is the missing Planck scale!
Newton formula (after calibration) is only partly relativistic, the gravity speed is c_g=c in it (unknown to the many researchers), but still we need to make the two masses relativistic, as I already have done. And then perfect fit with supernova data. No longer need for the of dark energy fantasy (fudge factor!)
I said 99%, so yes 0.9999% think the speed in Newton gravity is just much much faster than c, google up papers on this. And then it is the 0.00001% = Me, that do not think, but that have Proved once and for all it must be c_g=c embedded in Newton!
MAKE PHYSICS GREAT AGAIN!!!
Stay tuned!





EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


double, how can i delete posts? (or likely impossible, if not all my posts would have been deleted by people hating deep knowledge ;) 



EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


I'll bite. how Why the formula rewritten as
(basically the previous formula multiplied and divided by the speed of light (works even if it is zero) ) disproves the infinite gravitational speed in Newton mechanics? 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Compare the Poisson equation with Maxwell equations
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 


"(basically the previous formula multiplied and divided by the speed of light (works even if it is zero) ) disproves the infinite gravitational speed in Newton mechanics?"
I am not multiplying or dividing by anything. I am solving the Planck length formula of Max Planck with respect to G and replaces G with what it is, a composite. This would be meaningless if I not can find lp independent off G, but this I have shown is possible in series of published papers, including this one.
Then if setting c_g to infinite or zero we see it predicts infinite strong gravity or zero gravity that dose not make sense. only setting c_g=c gives right predictions, and we do not even need to set it to so, we can extract it from gravity phenomena without any detection of gravity waves (LIGO) etc, as I also have shown in previous published paper.
In addition this is not main "evidence". Main evidence is I can easily extract c and the Planck length from Newton gravity phenomena with no knowledge of any other constants.
The paper has many important implications
1. Reduction in constants from hbar, c, and G to only lp and c. That is from 3 to 2 universal constants (or we could say from 4 to 3 if we drag in discussion on fine structure,). Main point we can replace hbar and G with only lp.
2. We can detect the Planck scale, it is gravity!
3. We can extract lp totally independent of G and also independent of c and hbar.
Standard physics keep also operating with symbol M in gravity formulas, why? We can do much better than that, we know it is a particlewave duality, so why not describe it as that, as actually done in my paper, but not discussed in depth there, but in several of my other papers, just ask if you want references.




EGH


Total Posts: 124 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Sorry also your rewriting is totally wrong, if not you are just doing typo (or did u find important typo in my paper, cld be, if so tell me exactly where? would be appreciated ;)
is what you write, this is not the same as the Newton field equation (poisson equation), you have one lp^3 instead of lp^2, second one can not have G times this, one must have G or the composite version G=lp^2c^3/hbar, not the two multiplied by each other, makes ZERO sense!
Your math is as sloppy as your arguments. 




pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


As far as I know, I have to admit haven't looked properly how, but the Poisson equation
entails the infinite speed of gravity. Contrary to the Maxwell equations.
So you derive your constants the way you wish, it doesn't prove that the gravity isn't instantaneous in the classical mechanics.
N.B. Recently my nephew showed me the Reddit thread RoastMe. Somehow this thread reminds me of it.
< Edit > Changed the constant to into Capital C

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 


so the value of the constants (like the speed of light) has no effect if it is part of the equation, how come?
If I multiply by a constant c=0, c=infinity, or c=299792458 has no implication on the output????
(by the way you set up your constants did not make any sense in relation to Newton, it is PLAINE WRONG)
The mistake is one have thought c is not part of the equation I think. But if G and also M are composites containing c, but where c not cancels out, then one need to understand this first. M is indirectly in the density.





pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Changed c for C. Since there may be some difficulties with recognizing the c as a general constant and not a speed of light.
If you multiply and divide the equation by the same value, the equation, no the equation should still hold. (zero and infinity are a bit special cases, but the reader should get the drift)

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 


Off course I have not simply multiplied and also divided by c (or any other constants) on both sides as you seem to have indicated.
I have realized that G and M are composites. G=lp^2*c^3/hbar, and any kg mass can be described as hbar/BarLambda*1/c
So GM=c^2lp^2/BarLambda as discussed in detail in the paper. c dose not cancel out, I am not multiplying with and dividing by a constant. I am solving the Planck length formula of Max Planck with respect to G, and I solve the Compton wavelength formula with respect to m. Please study paper.
So I just show that c is already there, and off course the value of the constant means something, if not one would not have the constant there at all.
So we end up with
now you can multiply by c ( (c_g=c) or divide by c (ON BOTH SIDES) as much as you want and see if you can get rid of c (c_g) as long as you not pack it into G or M again! Yes sure you can move it to the other side. You have failed to even look into the main argument of the paper that c is hidden in the composite constant G, and yes also in m.
"zero and infinity are a bit special cases, "
so set c_g=c=1 or c_g=c=10^50, you will still not be able to match any observations. Only when c_g=capprox 299 792 458 are we able to predict Newtonian phenomena. So yes Newton gravity speed must at least be very close to c (we have measurement errors, so it will be hard to prove it is exact, but we now know it is very close).
Please study more before you rable even more in haste! 




pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Could you explain how the redefinition of the constant in Poisson equation changes the behaviour of its solutions so that the gravitational speed becomes finite?

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 


The Newton field equation as seen from a deeper level is
you can call this anything you want. It has a constant c_g that is equal to the speed of light. You claim indirectly that what we set its value to do not affect the result.
The proof to show why the value of c_g in this equation do not matter I think you have to show. Please multiply as much as you want with any constant on each side. What is your next argument? to multiply by zero on each side the equation dose not exist ;)
"redefinition of the constant in"
I am not sure redefinition is the correct framing, I am showing what the Composite constant in the Newtonian field equation actually is at a deeper level, it contains c, the speed of light is a constant in the equation. Or call it c_g, if you set it to any other significant different value than the experimentally known value of the speed of light, then this formula cannot predict observable gravity phenomena.
Do you understand that changing the value of the constant changes the output value?





pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Do you understand that rewriting the same constant in different way changes nothing? 
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 


of course it do, because then we know the constant is not some gravity constant not affected by the speed of light, but actually is also the speed of light, and the value of the speed of light affect then output values.
G is assumed to be a constant totally unaffected by the experimental value of c. I show it is directly affected by the speed og gravity which again I can experimentally extract from series of gravity phenomena and show is the same as the experimentally speed off light.
I have told you this already!
You clearly keep claiming that changing the value of a constant in a formula that contains a constant do not affect the output value. You are rambling more and more to cover up your rambling it looks like. As always it helps to study a little the things before throwing out strong opinions.
I am happy for counter arguments, i know of a possible other very different counter argument, but this is related to how one can measure some of the variables needed also when doing gravity observations.





pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


How did the Poisson equation change its behaviour after you have plugged in your redefinition of the G?
دیگ به دیگ می گوید رویت سیاه 
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 


"How did the Poisson equation change its behaviour after you have plugged in your redefinition of the G?"
Again I show G is a composite constant containing c. And then we need to set a value of c. I could claim c is one meter per second, or I could claim it is 10^50 meters per second and so on, then use the formula to derive observable predictions. The predictions would then not fit observations.
Only if we set c=the experimental observed speed of light, or alternatively extract this speed c_g from observing gravity phenomena only as described in several of my papers, then we can use the equation to accurately predict gravity observations that we easily can check based on direct observations.
So you keep claiming the value of the constant is not important for output, so just set it to zero then or send to journal that we simply can remove G from the Newton field equation, look forward to see your publication on this. Fine, I will not be able to convince you, your EGO^2 stands between you and knowledge!
I recommend you to actually study the paper
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/23996528/abe4c8 




pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


< Second attempt > Could you explain how the redefinition of the constant in Poisson equation changes the behaviour of its solutions so that the gravitational speed becomes finite?

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


nikol


Total Posts: 1366 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@pj
It is waste of time. EGH is AI text generator. 
... 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 


" Could you explain how the redefinition of the constant in Poisson equation changes the behaviour of its solutions so that the gravitational speed becomes finite?"
Second attempt : its solutions will also contain c. Set the value of c=0 for example to any of these solutions and see your output.
Will you claim very different output values not affect the behaviour of the solutions?
That you have got c=experimental correct value is because speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. So when calibrating G for example using Cavendish apparatus one get in the experimental correct value of c.
Yes the behaviour of its solutions is affected by the value of the constant in the field equation, at least for any derivation that is related to OBSERVABLE phenomena, because the constant carry over to predictions of any observable phenomena in its derivation.
It is very easy to see if for example setting constant to extreme values, set the constant to zero (as G will be zero if c=0, based on deeper understanding G is a composite G=lp^2c^3/hbar, so assume c=0 is same as assuming G=0).
You are indirectly saying that
where 0 is ZERO, gives same predictable behavior as
good luck with that, looking forward to see your paper where you claim one can remove G or set G=0 in Newtonian field equation and it will not affect behaviour of solutions.
Is the Newtonian field equation a complete model taking into account relativistic effects etc. (that indeed are linked to the speed of light), no I never have claimed so. For example relativistic effects for the mass are not taken into account as mentioned in the paper. If we do that also we can predict supernova data without the dark energy fantasy. (I have in different write up, that got accepted for publication yesterday actually, stay tuned) 



pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


@nikol > EGH is AI text generator. Not sure about Inteligence part 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> You are indirectly saying that... Please don't ascribe this nonsense to me.
All what I am saying that
is the same as
where is some nonzero constant. And I added that, informally, one could take zero or infinity. Thus the rederivation of the gravity constant doesn't prove anything about the speed of gravity. The Poisson equation stays the same. 
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 


U fail to see that the value of the constant actually play a role in predictions. One must calibrate G in standard physics as there is no way to calculate it. And if the speed of gravity not was c and the experimental measured value of c then this method would not work, as it would give predictable values not fitting observations.
Also when one discover that G is a composite constant, then one must have an opinion about the constants it is made up of, or if they even are constants.
Why on earth you started to drag in that one multiply and divide by the same constant I have no idea as such is no where in the paper, anyone know that.
You now try to cover up your rabling by saying ohh if will multiply and divide by same constant nothing change...sure but no one has claimed so, try your cheap tricks another place!
We are discussing the following equation
Of course it has big impact on predictions what value G has, and I have shown it is a function of c. And not any c, the experimental measured well known value of the speed of light. G is a composite G=lp^2c^3/hbar and only by having c equal to the experimental speed of light it will give predictions needed to fit observations. Actually we are getting all these constants in one sweep when calibrating G, but we can also isolate out c_g. Be aware also the mass density has embedded constants, the kg mass is from 2019 directly linked to hbar through the watt balance. So yes hbar will cancel out as I show in the paper, the reason for constant reduction.
You change the value of the constant and it changes the output values also for predictions derived from it, it is that simpel. This constant can only have one value, and that value is linked to the speed of light that is the same as the speed off gravity, so one need to calibrate it to observable gravity phenomena (that contains the speed of light), or to gravity phenomena not containing information about speed of gravity and then take speed of light from experimentally electromagnetic phenomena.
U cannot calibrate the constant to the speed of your brain, sorry it will then give wrong output values, way too low value for C.
If the speed of gravity was significant different from the speed of light as experimentally known then G would have very different value than it is found to have.
what is your next example/proof? to multiply and divide by k, and then multiply and divide by y, and then multiply and divide by f to show the equation do not change... 




pj


Total Posts: 3607 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Let us start from other side. What does it mean the infinite speed of gravity in the Newtonian mechanics versus the finite speed of gravity in general relativity? 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


nikol


Total Posts: 1366 
Joined: Jun 2005 


@pj
> Not sure about Inteligence part
Hehe... I warned you! 
... What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? (c) 


