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

[swansont 7323]

57 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

It should be for both coulomb's law and magnetism.

For  a wire when the circuit is closed the magnetic field starts to spread with the speed of light an experiment could be performed to determine whether magnetic field is already available at a point or it will reach that point after a time"it is not logical that the magnetic field already at infinity since we had a current started to flow at specific moment and shouldn't be available before that moment ,so how it would be available everywhere at an instant?"

The delay from the speed of light is already part of the physics.

[Strange 4267]

15 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

That mass existed from nothing and started to curve space-time from zero range to its today ranges for each mass.

That what I meant by:

"The existence of mass causes none-existence in space-time cause space-time to displace and bend"

 

I didn't ask you about "The existence of mass causes none-existence in space-time cause space-time to displace and bend" I asked you about "the mass existence is philosophical".

Quote

"The existence of mass causes none-existence in space-time cause space-time to displace and bend"

That makes no sense. How can the existence of mass cause non-existence? How can non-existence cause space-time to bend?

 

On 4/7/2019 at 6:36 PM, awaterpon said:

It is somehow to calculate the range of zero length at some begining

There is no evidence for any such beginning. Mass isn't just "created". Mass and energy are conserved.

[awaterpon 0]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

The delay from the speed of light is already part of the physics.

But there is not an idea of magnetism spreading out? The delay in fact is due to to spreading of magnetic field with speed of light c.

[Strange 4267]

2 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

But there is not an idea of magnetism spreading out? The delay in fact is due to to spreading of magnetic field with speed of light c.

Yes, that is what he said.

You seem to think you have found something new. But we know changes in gravity, and changes in electromagnetic fields, propagate at the speed of light. So I don't know what your point is.

[awaterpon 0]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 How can non-existence cause space-time to bend?

By displacing space-time. Think of blowing a balloon inside water container it would displace water and makes water have the same shape of the balloon "bend".

[Strange 4267]

5 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

By displacing space-time. Think of blowing a balloon inside water container it would displace water and makes water have the same shape of the balloon "bend".

That is the existence of the balloon displacing water. Not "non-existence".

This also has nothing to do with mass, gravity, or the limited range of gravity.

 

[swansont 7323]

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

But there is not an idea of magnetism spreading out? The delay in fact is due to to spreading of magnetic field with speed of light c.

That's already baked into Electrodynamics

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

By displacing space-time. Think of blowing a balloon inside water container it would displace water and makes water have the same shape of the balloon "bend".

Space-time isn't a substance, it's a geometry. A sheet of paper can be flat, or it can have a wrinkle in it, but the paper doesn't appear or disappear. Spacetime is the sheet, but not the paper.

[Strange 4267]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Spacetime is the sheet, but not the paper.

Nice.

[Ghideon 382]

 

4 hours ago, awaterpon said:

It should be for both coulomb's law and magnetism.

I suppose the above comment is in addition to the initial one statement below; it applies to coulomb's law?

On 4/6/2019 at 11:22 AM, awaterpon said:

The Newtonian equation of gravity is valid , all other equations of potential energy ,etc are valid the escape velocity is true. In my concept gravity decreases with the increment in distance my concept has the same values as we have in current view” g=9.8 m/s/s on earth surface both in current view and in my concept” the difference is that the equations are applied to a specific range beyond that range the equations are not applicable beyond that range the gravity value drops suddenly to zero value.

Which means per your idea that beyond a certain range magnetic fields and electrical fields suddenly must drop to zero? Can you provide references or evidence?
 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Ghideon
format

[swansont 7323]

23 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 Which means per your idea that beyond a certain range magnetic fields and electrical fields suddenly must drop to zero? Can you provide references or evidence?

In standard physics this would happen if e.g. you ionized an atom. Beforehand it's neutral and there would be no electric field, but afterward you would have an electric dipole. But the electric field would still be zero for distances greater than ct. The propagation of the field would occur in accordance to solutions of Maxwell's equations, where the propagation speed is c.

awaterpon's solution may have different details, but the concept is firmly ensconced in classical physics, and it's been there for ~150 years.

[studiot 2037]

@awaterpon

Have you seen this animation from NASA?

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by studiot

[Ghideon 382]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

In standard physics this would happen if e.g. you ionized an atom. Beforehand it's neutral and there would be no electric field, but afterward you would have an electric dipole. But the electric field would still be zero for distances greater than ct. The propagation of the field would occur in accordance to solutions of Maxwell's equations, where the propagation speed is c.

awaterpon's solution may have different details, but the concept is firmly ensconced in classical physics, and it's been there for ~150 years.

Thanks! But I think I know how mainstream physics work in this regard. But I see that my question was very unclear! My question was not regarding the speed of propagation but what is happening at a later time, according the idea in OP. I interpreted OP as if the propagation would stop at some distance;”suddenly drop to zero”. So when measuring the field later, there would, according to OP, be a distance where Fields would go from some small value to zero in a sudden step.

Sorry for the confusion.

[swansont 7323]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks! But I think I know how mainstream physics work in this regard. But I see that my question was very unclear! My question was not regarding the speed of propagation but what is happening at a later time, according the idea in OP. I interpreted OP as if the propagation would stop at some distance;”suddenly drop to zero”. So when measuring the field later, there would, according to OP, be a distance where Fields would go from some small value to zero in a sudden step.

Sorry for the confusion.

I was mainly posting for others' benefit. In any even I think the OP's position is about propagation speed, rather than deviating from a 1/r^2 (for gravity and electrostatics) at some distance. One problem with the propagation speed scenario described when applied to gravity is that you can't just make mass appear in a region that has no gravity, while you can do this for electric and magnetic fields. We have evidence of changes in gravity propagating at c, though, as has already been pointed out: gravitational waves (also the Hulse and Taylor pulsar, though that's indirect evidence)

[awaterpon 0]

58 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

according to OP, be a distance where Fields would go from some small value to zero in a sudden step.

Think of an object  close to a range limit by one meter , now think of moving this object away from mass towards the range end the object can't reach the limit point since it can't move faster than light " range is extendable with c" So in fact there is not a sudden step so that force drop to zero  , the sudden change is only mathematically. The space-time is curved at the limit point by a degree but has no any curvature after that point, however since the curving process continues there is not a sudden drop in space curvature since it continues

Edited April 11, 2019 by awaterpon

[Strange 4267]

4 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Think of an object  close to a range limit by one meter , now think of moving this object away from mass towards the range end the object can't reach the limit point since it can't move faster than light " range is extendable with c" So in fact there is not a sudden step so that force drop to zero  , the sudden change is only mathematically.

And, mathematically, where is this sudden change? And what causes it?

 

[awaterpon 0]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

@awaterpon

Have you seen this animation from NASA?

 

No but beautiful. My idea is something like this thanks studiot

Edited April 11, 2019 by awaterpon

[Strange 4267]

4 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

No but beautiful. My idea is something like this thanks studiot

So you have nothing new to add to well-established physics?

Should we close this thread now?

[awaterpon 0]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you have nothing new to add to well-established physics?

Should we close this thread now?

 don't close the thread please.I meant it is a good representation for my idea

Edited April 11, 2019 by awaterpon

[Strange 4267]

6 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

 don't close the thread please.I meant it is a good representation for my idea

But it isn’t clear what your idea is or how it is different from standard physics. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

@awaterpon

Have you seen this animation from NASA?

 

Can you provide the source for this, please

[Ghideon 382]

 

2 hours ago, awaterpon said:

Think of an object  close to a range limit by one meter , now think of moving this object away from mass towards the range end the object can't reach the limit point since it can't move faster than light " range is extendable with c" So in fact there is not a sudden step so that force drop to zero  , the sudden change is only mathematically. The space-time is curved at the limit point by a degree but has no any curvature after that point, however since the curving process continues there is not a sudden drop in space curvature since it continues

Thanks for the clarification. As I said, I misinterpreted the idea, I thought I should look for something new.
Bold by me:

On 4/6/2019 at 11:22 AM, awaterpon said:

The Newtonian equation of gravity is valid , all other equations of potential energy ,etc are valid the escape velocity is true. In my concept gravity decreases with the increment in distance my concept has the same values as we have in current view” g=9.8 m/s/s on earth surface both in current view and in my concept” the difference is that the equations are applied to a specific range beyond that range the equations are not applicable beyond that range the gravity value drops suddenly to zero value.

 

On 4/6/2019 at 11:22 AM, awaterpon said:

if gravity jumps from number to number it would jump to zero while space continues to infinity

 

On 4/6/2019 at 11:22 AM, awaterpon said:

it will move for instance from 3.4 to 3.49 to 3.499 to infinity regardless its speed it won’t reach the 4 however in fact an object will jump from a number to a nearby number it will jump from 3 to 4 gravity jumps to zero while space continues to infinity.

 

On 4/7/2019 at 9:33 PM, awaterpon said:

General relativity doesn't say gravity spread out with the speed of light c.It doesn't say gravity has a limited range.I discovered all these .

I failed to see that speed of propagation of gravity was part of or required in the above descriptions. Result is, as others have already said, that nothing new has been presented.
 

2 hours ago, awaterpon said:

don't close the thread please.I meant it is a good representation for my idea

Can you please show what is new and not already included in existing mainstream physics?

Edited April 11, 2019 by Ghideon
missing part at the end of post

[awaterpon 0]

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Can you please show what is new and not already included in existing mainstream physics?

The idea of infinity is always wrong.They are newtonian thoughts, things like Infinite speed of objects , infinite speed of gravity and gravity is everywhere and available at infinity.They are all Newton's thoughts

I presented a new solution based on GR and violating Newton thoughts of infinite extend of gravity , Gravity being everywhere untill infinity is a Newtonian thought left unchanged by GR what I did is completing GR without violating any part of it and without violating modern physics.

[Strange 4267]

59 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

The idea of infinity is always wrong.

How do you know?

The universe may be infinite in size. The universe may be infinite in age.

Do you have any evidence that neither of these are the case?

 

[awaterpon 0]

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

The universe may be infinite in size. The universe may be infinite in age.

Do you have any evidence that neither of these are the case?

Space and time are infinite since they are fundamental

[Strange 4267]

3 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Space and time are infinite since they are fundamental

How do you know that?

The universe could be finite in size. The universe may be finite in age.

Do you have any evidence?

And doesn't this contradict what you just said:

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

The idea of infinity is always wrong.

You seem to just post random ideas that pop into your head. 

You need to: get your thoughts organised; Write down the mathematics; Find some evidence that is consistent with that.

If you don't do that, why should anyone take these incoherent comments seriously?

[Ghideon 382]

1 hour ago, awaterpon said:

The idea of infinity is always wrong.They are newtonian thoughts, things like Infinite speed of objects , infinite speed of gravity and gravity is everywhere and available at infinity.They are all Newton's thoughts

I presented a new solution based on GR and violating Newton thoughts of infinite extend of gravity , Gravity being everywhere untill infinity is a Newtonian thought left unchanged by GR what I did is completing GR without violating any part of it and without violating modern physics.

But that is already known? Here is an attempt at a short comment using math*:

Newton: [math] \lim_{r \rightarrow  \infty } G\frac{ m_{1}  m_{2} }{ r^{2} }=0[/math]
At infinitely large distance the gravitational force is infinitely small. Any change will happen in an infinitely short time.

 

GR: It takes an infinite time for a gravitational wave to reach infinite distance and the wave will be infinitely weak. I do not possess the knowledge to write down the correct math for GR.

What new discovery are you proposing? How does your mathematical explanation look?

 

*) Not necessarily mathematically formally correct, hopefully correct enough to make a point.