Gravity is limited to a range extendable with the speed of light c

[awaterpon]

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I think that it is already well established knowledge, according to current physics. It does not test the new equation you suggested. 

But magnetism equation is the same as gravity equation in which a magnet can affect a magnet at infinity and force is inversely proportional to the squared distance . If not and magnetism of a wire spread with c then how the equation applies for distances out of range.

T here will be measured from the time the magnetic field started in a wire.

[Ghideon]

15 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

But magnetism equation is the same as gravity equation in which a magnet can affect a magnet at infinity and force is inversely proportional to the squared distance . If not and magnetism of a wire spread with c then how the equation applies for distances out of range.

T here will be measured from the time the magnetic field started in a wire.

Can you show the math? So far I have seen an equation for your proposed modification of Newtons mechanics.  
 

[awaterpon]

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you show the math? 

I don't know yet. But should be something similar to what I presented for gravity, the same idea of limited range extendable with speed of light c. I showed a mistake in current physics a magnetized wire if its magnetism spread with c then it should have a limited range of magnetic force and the equation in which force is inversely proportional to squared distance won't apply"out of range" . The same for gravity I described in fact they  all  have things in common. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by awaterpon

[Ghideon]

39 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

I don't know yet. But should be something similar to what I presented for gravity, the same idea of limited range extendable with speed of light c. I showed a mistake in current physics a magnetized wire if its magnetism spread with c then it should have a limited range of magnetic force and the equation in which force is inversely proportional to squared distance won't apply"out of range" . The same for gravity I described in fact they  all  have things in common. 

What mistake in current physics? Speed of light in vacuum known, tested and included in the mainstream formulas. 

Lets focus on the modified version of Newtons equations that you have proposed. It is already known that Newton does not take gravitational waves, invariant speed of light in vacuum, time dilation and other things that Einsteins relativity handles (SR, GR). There are situations where Newton mechanics applies and situations where Newton mechanics does not apply. Einstein's equations applies to a broader set of situations* and will look like Newton for the situations where Newton applies. Take a look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor for instance:

[math]\gamma ={\frac {1}{{\sqrt {1-({\frac {v}{c}})^{2}}}}}[/math]

Very simply put: for speeds much less than c the factor very close to 1; Newton and Einstein gives same result unless high precision is required. So there is no need for new equations to cover the issues you describe, you just have to know when and where to use the existing equations from mainstream physics. 

How do we test that your equation predicts gravitational effects better than Newton and Einstein? Have you analysed your suggested equation for gravity and seen it's implications? The way you have introduced c and t seems to imply some really strange behavior if I understand your descriptions. Hint: take a look at the connection between r, v and t in what you have stated so far. Since this is speculation section I'll let you will work out the details

 

*) Higher speeds for instance. There are also situations where more work is needed; As far as I know GR does not work good for the center of black holes for instance.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Ghideon
corrected math tag

[Strange]

2 hours ago, awaterpon said:

But magnetism equation is the same as gravity equation in which a magnet can affect a magnet at infinity and force is inversely proportional to the squared distance . If not and magnetism of a wire spread with c then how the equation applies for distances out of range.

I assume you are just thinking of something like Coulombs law (that electric force falls off as the square of distance).

Maxwell's equations are more complete and include the fact that changes propagate at c. In fact, this was one thing that made people realise that light was electromagnetic radiation.

Similarly, Newton's equation for gravity (which looks very similar to the equation for electric charge) does not include speed but the more complete equations (Einstein's Field Equations) do describe the fact that gravity propagates at c.

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

I showed a mistake in current physics

No. You showed your lack of knowledge of physics.

[awaterpon]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What mistake in current physics?

Well, when a current is started in wire the magnetic field starts to spread with speed c similar to light itself. Now let's test a point where the magnetic field didn't reach yet.How the equation of the squared proportional distance and force works then. 

There should be a point when magnetic field drops to zero suddenly .And there would be a place where magnetic field didn't reach " out of range" how the equation applies there?

The equation I'm referring to is the magnetic force is inversely proportional to distance r

[swansont]

3 hours ago, awaterpon said:

I don't know yet. But should be something similar to what I presented for gravity, the same idea of limited range extendable with speed of light c. I showed a mistake in current physics a magnetized wire if its magnetism spread with c then it should have a limited range of magnetic force and the equation in which force is inversely proportional to squared distance won't apply"out of range" . The same for gravity I described in fact they  all  have things in common. 

The math you want can be found in advanced electrodynamics texts ( the one by Jackson is commonly used in physics), because that’s where this phenomenon is already described

[Ghideon]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

electrodynamics

Good point.

Probably the mixing of static and dynamic situations* for both gravity and electromagnetism is the main reason behind the proposals made by OP.

7 hours ago, awaterpon said:

Now let's test a point where the magnetic field didn't reach yet.How the equation of the squared proportional distance and force works then. 

I asked you to analyse your proposed equation for gravity but I see no response. So here are some comments. As Swanson pointed out you seem so mix static and dynamic things. Here is Newton: [math]F=G  \frac{m_{1} m_{2}}{ r^{2} }[/math] Note: there is no time dependency as far as I can see.

Here is your modified version. I have changed into what I think you mean, you have not yet responded to my request to take the changing radius into account. This is a best guess:

[math]f()=G  \frac{m_{1} m_{2}}{ r^{2}(t) } (1-\frac{  | r'(t) | t}{c( t_{0} +t)} )[/math]

Assumptions made by me:

• Since you introduced radial velocity [math]v[/math], radius [math]r[/math] is not constant. So I assume you mean [math]r[/math] as function of time; [math]r(t)[/math].
• [math]r(t)[/math] depends on radial velocity [math]v[/math] so I assume [math]v[/math] is time derivate of [math]r[/math], [math]r'(t)[/math].
• You stated that direction of the radial velocity is not important, so I use absolute value [math]| r'(t) |[/math].
• I assume [math]T[/math] and [math]t[/math] uses same changing time component so [math]T[/math] is some starting time [math]t_{0}[/math]+ elapsed time [math]t[/math].

Instead of an equation from Newton we now seem to have a differential equation.

Questions: 
Do you see what strange things this equation suggests? Hint: what would happen, according to your math, to two ideal pendulums, started at different times?
Do you see how it seems to differ from the predictions in mainstream physics, how it can be tested and how its is most likely going to fail such test?

Maybe it is time to start from scratch, asking questions about mainstream physics in an appropriate mainstream section of this forum?

 

*) I remember many years ago when I studied. Static and dynamic mechanics were separate courses, first static then dynamic Newtonian mechanics.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Ghideon
t0 typo

[awaterpon]

 

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I asked you to analyse your proposed equation for gravity but I see no response

Giving the idea that magnetic field in a wire spread with speed c , my equation would be  similar to electrodynamics one , but I couldn't find that equation for electrodynamics where magnetism on wire spread with c speed.

[Ghideon]

Did you read my comment on your gravity equation above? You have still not shown anything new that is missing in mainstream physics. You have shown a new equation* for already known concepts and the equation you proposed* seems incorrect. Existing equations matches observations and tests. Your version seems to contradict several things already tested and covered by existing physics.

 

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

Giving the idea that magnetic field in a wire spread with speed c , my equation would be  similar to electrodynamics one , but I couldn't find that equation for electrodynamics where magnetism on wire spread with c speed.

Strange already told you:

21 hours ago, Strange said:

assume you are just thinking of something like Coulombs law (that electric force falls off as the square of distance).

Maxwell's equations are more complete and include the fact that changes propagate at c. In fact, this was one thing that made people realise that light was electromagnetic radiation.

Adding your proposed [math](1-\frac{  | r'(t) |  t}{c( t_{0} +t)} )[/math] would not work well. See gravity in my previous post.

 

 

*) Side note; I still think it was good that you introduced an equation in the discussion! From a scientific point of view I believe it leads to more fruitful discussions, vague descriptions with zero math are commonly seen in this section of the forum.

[awaterpon]

34 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I still think it was good that you introduced an equation in the discussion! From a scientific point of view I believe it leads to more fruitful discussions, vague descriptions with zero math are commonly seen in this section of the forum.

The math is difficult I will try again.

What if I eliminate both time and speed and add r?

(1-r/cT)

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by awaterpon

[Ghideon]

10 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

What if I eliminate both time and speed and add r?

Something incorrect, such as negative gravity for small values of T? 

[awaterpon]

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Something incorrect, such as negative gravity for small values of T? 

I will think about a new mathematical equation I think I get it now.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

I will think about a new mathematical equation I think I get it now.

You need to start from Maxwell’s equations: https://physics.info/em-waves/

As you can see, this shows that changes propagate at c. 

The same is true for gravity but the math is much more complex

[awaterpon]

A new equation :

F= G  mM/(c^2* T^2)

T:  is from zero to current time since the existence of mass

Edited April 18, 2019 by awaterpon

[Ghideon]

6 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

A new equation :

F= G  mM/(c^2* T^2)

T:  is from zero to current time since the existence of mass

Where is the distance r between m and M in the equation above?
What new physics are you trying to describe?
Why keep providing incorrect equations, when correct* equations already exists?

 

*) "correct" means well tested, matching existing evidence, reliable within their respective area of applicability.

[awaterpon]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Where is the distance r between m and M in the equation above?

r=cT , at each point from mass the mass spent T time to reach this point in the past.Time T spent at this point in the past multiplied by c equivalent to distance r.

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What new physics are you trying to describe?

We have limited time T instead of infinite distance r.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

A new equation :

F= G  mM/(c^2* T^2)

T:  is from zero to current time since the existence of mass

Several problems with this:

1. It doesn't work

2. You are assuming that change propagates at c instead of deriving it from the equation.

3. We already have equations that show how the effects of electric charge and gravity propagate at finite speed.

[Ghideon]

3 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

We have limited time T instead of infinite distance r.

Again, nothing new. A gravitational wave, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation, is the same speed as the speed of light (c). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Here are the scenarios I see at this time:
1: Keep modifying the equation until it matches observations and gives correct predictions where applicable. The result will be General Relativity*, an already known theory.
2: Keep modifying by adding constraints and adjustments until the equations has no measurable effect and can't be tested. Such changes are trivial to invent and has no scientific value.
3: New theories beyond GR emerge, compatible with GR in areas where GR applies. (Quantum Gravity or similar)

Given the progress so far I boldly state that probability for #3 is zero within the scope of this thread.

Is there any point of continuing this discussion? 

 

 

*) And other closely related things, I believe it is not necessary to go into extensive details to make a point.

[awaterpon]

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Again, nothing new. 

Is there any point of continuing this discussion? 

Just one last thing:

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

Edited April 18, 2019 by awaterpon

[Ghideon]

17 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

the equation I presented

Which one? You have presented several revisions, all of them incorrect.

17 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

Detection of gravity waves, with finite speed c, and hence reaching finite distance in finite time, got a Nobel Prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/ So it is considered a well established part of science.

 

 

On 4/13/2019 at 11:31 AM, awaterpon said:

Honestly I'm merely an engineering student

Why not try to learn some physics, since you seem genuinely interested in these topics? 

[awaterpon]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Detection of gravity waves, with finite speed c, and hence reaching finite distance in finite time, got a Nobel Prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/ So it is considered a well established part of science.

I mean gravity is not infinitely throughout space. It is limited to a range extendable with speed of light c.

 

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

It doesn't need an addition to GR. 

GR already describes how gravity propagates at the speed of light.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

I mean gravity is not infinitely throughout space. It is limited to a range extendable with speed of light c.

You keep repeating that, even after all the things you have been told in this thread. Speculation: are your ideas based on misunderstanding Big Bang cosmology? You seem to argue as if there are parts of the universe where no gravity waves have ever passed (yet)? If so, then I think that discussion requires a separate thread.

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Ghideon
grammar and spelling

[awaterpon]

Thanks.

Edited April 19, 2019 by awaterpon