Unifying Gravitational Force Equation

[Dors_Venabili]

F = ma + mvxw

where: F=force, m=mass, a=static gravitational field, v=velocity of mass 'current', x=cross product, w=angular velocity of rotating mass.

To confirm:

Follow Maxwell's derivation for electromagnetic equations, but rather than initiating with F=qE as the static manefestation of the force, exchange charge for mass by using F=ma. Continue tensor derivation with mass in the place of charge and the above force equation will become evident. Equation can then be used to unify electromagnetic forces with gravitational ones. Also confirms the existence of gravitons.

Feel free to email me if you would like further details.

Zarko

 

[Janitor]

Hari Seldon says hello.

 

[ahrkron]

Long time no see,

R Daneel Olivaw

 

[Stingray]

The short reply is that what you've noted has been known for almost 100 years now. It is also wrong. You have some interpretational errors, but even when the idea is used correctly, vector gravity (as its called) does not agree with experiment.

Your simplest problem with your take on it is "what is a (or g as it would normally be called)?" If you take it to be the Newtonian form, then that already violates the principles of special relativity that you used to derive the result. The entire thing is therefore logically inconsistent. There are more issues, but I don't feel like listing them.

Incidentally, the lowest order form of Einstein's equation is almost the same as Maxwell's equations (but not quite). The force laws are also similar. In the full theory, though, there is no resemblance.

 

[Dors_Venabili]

I understand your interpretation of the problem, and yes, I am aware of similar logic having been developed years ago. The original interpretation however, first postulated, and the results that followed, were incorrect and therefore yielded inconsistent experimental results. Those results however do not invalidate this theory and its distinct interpretation. First off, physicists have the predisposition of believing (because of their intangibility) that static objects of mass m create gravitational "g"-fields. This is incorrect. Rather, the g-field or "a" as referred to in the force equation (accelerative field) already exists in the universe irrespective of whether a mass is placed in it or not. It is not until a massive object is placed within a field of strength a that static gravitational forces exert themselves on neighboring bodies. The confusion surrounds the need to drop the archaic perception that the force field is non-existent until space is acted upon by a mass. Ask yourself if E-fields can exist without static charges, and if so, why would an identical mathematical derivation exchanging one constant for another (i.e. charge for mass) be interpreted differently?

As for your indication that this theory has been experimentally refuted, it has not - well, more correctly, it has not via my interpretation of g or a which only defines static fields. Further, we must acknowledge that extreme angular velocity fields must be generated before we recognize any significant force on neighboring bodies. Neutron stars would make for excellent experimentation candidates due to their speedy rotations. We have as yet not performed such intricate experiments for such a seemingly 'weak' component to the force equation. End point: unless the object of mass m is rotating about its axis at incredible frequency, the force equation will read F=ma or F=mg as you have already mentioned.

Zarko

 

[Dr Transport]

so young, you have time to rebound from your mistakes...