Re: SCHOENFELD'S LAW OF GRAVITATION

From: wavelength (wowsers_at_odsy.net)
Date: 06/06/04 

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 01:04:12 -0500

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:c82e00$hnf$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> wavelength wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> > news:c7veoc$r4k$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>John Schoenfeld wrote:
> >>
> >>>SCHOENFELD'S LAW OF GRAVITATION:
> >>>
> >>>Fg = G (y^2 m0 Y^2 M0) / r^2
> >>>
> >>>where
> >>> G = gravitational constant
> >>> y = gamma for body 1 = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> >>> Y = gamma for body 2 = 1/sqrt(1 - V^2/c^2)
> >>> m0 = rest mass of body 1
> >>> M0 = rest mass of body 2
> >>> r = displacement between body 1 and body 2
> >>> c = light speed
> >>>
> >>>PROOF:
> >>>Consider the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE:
> >>> F = (ypa)/ (bc)
> >>> = (y E a) / c^2
> >>>
> >>>Deriving Newtons law of gravitation from SCHOENFELD'S 2ND LAW (F=(m+ v
> >>>dm/dv)a) gives:
> >>>
> >>> Fg = G [ (m1 + v1 dm1/dv1) (m2 + v2 dm2/dv2) ] / r^2 -- Eq 1
> >>>
> >>>Since,
> >>> F = (m + v dm/dv)a = (yEa)/c^2
> >>>then
> >>> (m + v dm/dv) = yE/c^2 --- Eq 2
> >>>
> >>>Substituting Eq 2 into Eq 1 gives
> >>>
> >>>Fg = G (y1 E1 y2 E2) / (c^4 r^2)
> >>> = G (y1^2 m0 y2^2 M0) / r^2
> >>>
> >>>QED (there are other easier proofs as well).
> >>
> >>We have already General Relativity to describe gravitation - so what use
> >>does this law have? (I don't bother to check if the calculation is
> >>actually correct)
> >>
> >>
> >>Bye,
> >>Bjoern
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hiyas :),
> >
> > I find it quite interesting as it extends Newtons law - or is at
least a
> > attempt to do so. It is correct for v,V = 0 by the correspondence
principle,
> > in which case it is Newton's law. GR, I believe, is unnecessarily
> > complicated with its crazy mathematical 4 spaces and tensors being
described
> > in mathematical abstractions instead of physical intuition.
>
> Do you have another theory which reproduces the confirmed predictions of
> GR? If not, your claim that GR is "unnecessarily complicted" is baseless.
>
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
>

No not at this time........... however I wasnt born with a silver spoon in
my mouth so that I could spend a indefinite amount of time
on this sort of stuff.

I do have a alternative approach which I feel intuitively would
work........I see no reason why it wouldnt and it doesnt do away the idea of
force with crazy geometry.

Best

:)

Quantcast