sloppy


Total Posts: 7 
Joined: May 2011 


Never mind the constants. How can a differential equation with no time derivatives describe timedependent dynamics? Answer: it can't. 




EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"How can a differential equation with no time derivatives describe timedependent dynamics? Answer: it can't."
It can at least partly do so in several ways. One can claim time is in the equation, on the right side, look carefully!
spacetime is likely three dimensional (Minikowski space time has not lead to unification, but it looks like 3D spacetime do, much discussed in 70's then forgotten, picked up by several researchers recently, u will for sure here more about it in years to come. So space and time is then two sides of same coin, if you move in space u move in time. Any move in space is a move in time, any move in time is a move in space.
Not only that my reformulated mass is collisiontime, so change in mass distribution is change in collisiontime. Standard gravity theory contains this as well, but unknowingly to modern physics, but it is hidden in GM as described in detail in several of my papers, it is also used in this paper.
Newtons field equation is not a complete picture of gravity, but it contains speed of light, changes in speed of light away from observed value will affect the outcome of predictions. One can say it also contain time in several ways.
You have the speed of light in it, and the distance to the surface we are describing. Change in distance result in change in time. Is it a model to describe change in time? Nope, the distance and the speed gravity travel over that distance is set when decided on distance.
Also what is change in distance divided by speed of light?




EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


and why are you only hung up in the Poisson equation, most of my paper is about the Newton gravity force formula. There are no partial derivatives there, nor of time nor of space. It is assume no speed of light is in the formula, but it gets in with calibration, and the small mass cancel out before one come to a formula predicting anything observable that we have looked at
But this is identical and from a deeper understanding equal to
so yes c is there, and it must have the experimental value of light, one could even claim time is there as c/R=1/R/c=1/T=f , as this is the time it would ta for a gravity particle (indivisible) to travel from center to center (R). So a change in R gives a change in time, a change in c gives a change in time (but from experiments we know c is a constant). and 1/2 R_s is the gravitaional energy in terms of collision length.
It even show that gravity will be probabilisitic below the Planck mass, as described in my more recent papers.





EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Doh. Because the Poisson equation implies the infinity of the speed of the gravity. Not the redefining of the gravitational constant. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


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


pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


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



pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


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


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


sloppy's question is indeed a good one, "Never mind the constants. How can a differential equation with no time derivatives describe timedependent dynamics? Answer: it can't."
Sorry for stupid question, but what about the following diff equation, dose it say anything about time dependent dynamics or not?
where C is a constant > 0, and V is a variable, and yes t is time. So a partial derivative with respect to time on the right side. 




pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


@EGH, if you please, don't go off tangent and don't dodge my questions

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


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


why off the tangent? Sloppy's question is highly relevant (unlike your strange multiplying G with the composite constant of itself), it is rooted in a standard argument here, and I have thought more carefully about it, I am asking you guys if there is any time dynamics in the following diff equation?
where C is a constant > 0, and V is a variable, and yes t is time. So a partial derivative with respect to time on the right side.
just so we have some common base to discuss from. If we first can agree on that this diff equation has time dynamics then we perhaps can come to agreement on the whole topic... 




sloppy


Total Posts: 7 
Joined: May 2011 


The time derivative is necessary, but not sufficient. It would need to be a time derivative of the gravitational potential (phi), not the source (M).
But this new equation is not Newton's gravity, so it's not getting anywhere in terms of explaining why you think Newton's gravity has finite speed of propagation. 



EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"But this new equation is not Newton's gravity"
this equation is simply a small rewriting of the Newtonian field equation, I have not even multiplied by a constant. We must have:
Newtonian Field Equation "Poisson" equation from a new perspective
where the mass is the mass in terms of collisiontime, not something I invented now, nor that the partial derivative of the collisiontime mass with respect to time, described in my previous papers.
It gives all the same output, same units etc. It comes from the same derivation, except one are not relaying on a composite constant and a diffuse understanding of mass M when interpreting it.





pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> It gives all the same output, same units etc. etc. includes the infinite speed of gravity as well. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


if the gravity potential changes the true mass must be changing, due to change in time.
mass is directly linked to gravity potential...but much can and will be discussed here, stay tuned, soon publishing much more on gravity
please study up on collisiontime mass, that is embedded in all standard gravity, without the researcher knowing about it as they stare at G and M without known what they stand for at a deeper level.
Max Jammer pointed correctly out in his book about mass "Mass is a Mess" in standard physics, now fixed in collision spacetime. 




pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> @EGH, if you please, don't go off tangent and don't dodge my questions

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


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"It would need to be a time derivative of the gravitational potential (phi), not the source (M)."
Good point, because you likely think in kg mass terms, and the kg mass has no time derivative alone, but G converts it into a collision time mass, naturally unknown to standard physics as they have not understood G is a composite and also they have not understood their kg mass is a incomplete mass.
The gravitational potential is also given by
as R is not a function of time, and , and naturally the speed of light is independent on time, then the partial derivative with respect to time of Phi is indeed identical to the partial derivative of the collisiontime mass, but not at all with respect to the dumb kg mass (that Newton never used, and that is totally against the principle Newton laid out in Principia) (perhaps why u not got the possibilities here)
We must have that
In other words we have the partial derivative of the gravity potential with respect to time on the right side of the Newtonian field equation (Poisson equation)
So looks like we likely have ( I need to double check my derivations later)
but for traditional theory one are BLIND as one stare at G and M with no clue what they truly are! G that Newton never invented nor used, and would for sure dislike it strongly, as one then need to use a mass defintion in his formula that goes against Newtons core principle laid out in Principia. Newton understood mass better than modern parrots!
Nice we even get a probabilistic quantum model from this when the mass is smaller than the Planck mass, as already described in my recent papers.
This was interesting question indeed! Thanx! I wish pj could have such intelligent questions from time to time also. He is more like; "we multiply and divide by k and then we amazingly get the same formula, have anyone ever thought about that ??"
working paper updated
and the partial derivative of the collisiontime with respect to time is a quantum probability rooted in causality for masses smaller than the Planck mass. Similar the partial derivative of the collisionlength energy with respect to space is also a quantum probability rooted in causality. Likely de Broglie and Albert could like that as they disliked the hocus locus probabilities of standard QM that not are rooted in causality. 




pj


Total Posts: 3601 
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 


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


you tell us, then we can see if we agree etc.
also have you studied the Le Sage 1748 model, first to show pushshielding gravity gives Newton as good approximation, and he indeed assumed speed of indivisible particles where same as speed of light. Well later he assumed faster than light. Of course Le Sage had no gravity constant, it was invented in 1873 after kg mass standard became popular in Europe.
Good start to really study Le Sage (that is an explanatory model for Newton)
https://www.amazon.com/PushingGravityPerspectivesTheoryGravitation/dp/0968368972
so when someone has derived Newton theory, rooted in indivisible particles assumed to move at the speed of light, then still you are 100% sure this is inconsistent with Newton. PJ Fantastico!





pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


What has The Wise One (aka Le Sage) to do with Poisson equation and infinite gravity speed in Newtonian mechanics?
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.
In general relativity absolutely not, because of the speed of light.
< EDIT > the circle is of, say, 1824613.56 mile radius, and the speed is ,say, 100 knots.
Of course, fill free to change or fill in the values. Just no nonsense.
< EDIT 2 > Fixed some misteaks. Apologies. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


this is not only about the Poisson equation where you also have a weak hand, but I told you that already, getting tired of repeating myself.
"What has The Wise One (aka Le Sage) to do with Poisson equation and infinite gravity speed in Newtonian mechanics?"
Le Sage derived Newton inverse square law of gravity from his idea that gravity caused by indivisible particles with spatial dimensions moving at speed of light. Off course relevant! Le Sage is an explanatory model for Newton inverse square law. But you rable again without studying first. Modern physics totally ignored series of things Newton laid out about matter, such as indeed spatial dimension. Le Sage clearly studied Newton, unlike modern rablers.





pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


On the contrary, my dear Watson
Poisson equation has to do everything with the infinite speed of Newtonian gravity. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


pj


Total Posts: 3601 
Joined: Jun 2004 


An appropriate quote
“Go to hell with your Studebaker!” exploded Ostap. “Who is this Studebaker? Is he a relative of yours? Is your Daddy a Studebaker? What do you want from me? I’m telling you in plain Russian that the Studebaker was replaced with a LorraineDietrich at the last moment, and you keep bugging me! Studebaker my foot!” 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 122 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"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 same circle 300000 km (a speed of light in vacuum) away."
please be a bit scientific and make your examples more precise.
with a) are you talking about orbiting around M with R=1000km? and I assume m much smaller than M ?
b)"a 90000=300^2 more massive thing " the orbital object is more massive? 90000 times the weight of first object (as measured in same gravity field, same R)? moving at "300000 km (a speed of light in vacuum) away." how can the more massive object move at speed of light, when only light, massless particles can do so? have you started smoking something special? Do your theory include flying saucers and anti gravity ?
sorry I cannot spend time on riddles, I am trying to do science.




Maggette


Total Posts: 1288 
Joined: Jun 2007 


I have seen no experiments and no data. At best, you are doing math.

Ich kam hierher und sah dich und deine Leute lächeln,
und sagte mir: Maggette, scheiss auf den small talk,
lass lieber deine Fäuste sprechen...



