Introduction

I think most of you are familiar with Newton Issac and Albert Einstein's gravity theory which seem to involving gravitational relationship between objects, whereas this I approach is singular (focus on an object or object's gravitational individuality as possibly fundamental which relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity theory) happen possibly because of it.

Diagram

A diagram of the gravity equation formulation developed by myself as part of self-learning with the gravity within both classical physics and quantum physics although is singular for time being, supposedly applies to an individual object - but not yet approach relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity). I'm still not fully certain and also, it could be wrong and may need a refinement or discard if all of it found to be wrong.

Mental Picture and Question

Q1: I can mentally picture that gravity equation formulation on the diagram (i.e. visualization) I developed but not mathematics yet though and sometime I can still get a bit confused by these equations even if I developed these myself. I wonder if there is any mathematician or physicist here that is an expert in reading and understanding it, and see if any of it make sense or not?

Diagram Elaboration

It depicts a square with four dots connecting each other with their respective and affixed possible equations constituting a possible gravity equation.

Q2: Is it possible to add an exponentiation ^2 or similar to it to the gravity equation, for its density somehow?

Additional Comment

I think the gravity equation formulation (five of these on the diagram) I developed is 'placeholder' for any possible mathematical operation yet to be perform on these.

I don't understand your diagram, maybe I misinterpreted it?

Your diagram states f=dmt

Your definition, with units added:
f: force (N)
d: distance (m)
m: mass (kg)
t: time (s)

Units in your formula: dmt implies units m*kg*s
Force in SI units is: kg*m*s^-2

The units don’t match, and no physical law I know of supports such a relation. So the diagram seems incorrect and nonsensical in physics.

1 hour ago, tylers100 said:

Introduction

I think most of you are familiar with Newton Issac and Albert Einstein's gravity theory which seem to involving gravitational relationship between objects, whereas this I approach is singular (focus on an object or object's gravitational individuality as possibly fundamental which relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity theory) happen possibly because of it.

Diagram

A diagram of the gravity equation formulation developed by myself as part of self-learning with the gravity within both classical physics and quantum physics although is singular for time being, supposedly applies to an individual object - but not yet approach relation / relativity (e.g. general relativity). I'm still not fully certain and also, it could be wrong and may need a refinement or discard if all of it found to be wrong.

Mental Picture and Question

Q1: I can mentally picture that gravity equation formulation on the diagram (i.e. visualization) I developed but not mathematics yet though and sometime I can still get a bit confused by these equations even if I developed these myself. I wonder if there is any mathematician or physicist here that is an expert in reading and understanding it, and see if any of it make sense or not?

Diagram Elaboration

It depicts a square with four dots connecting each other with their respective and affixed possible equations constituting a possible gravity equation.

Q2: Is it possible to add an exponentiation ^2 or similar to it to the gravity equation, for its density somehow?

Additional Comment

I think the gravity equation formulation (five of these on the diagram) I developed is 'placeholder' for any possible mathematical operation yet to be perform on these.

Yes, as @Ghideon points out the dimensions don't stack up. Force has dimensions ML/T² , whereas on the right hand side of your first equation you have MLT. So it makes no sense.

And then you make it worse by saying not only f=dmt but also d = mtf, when the first equation would imply d = f/mt. So the first 2 equations are mutually contradictory.

You can't just make up like nonsense like this. It looks as if you don't have an understanding of basic algebra. If that is so it is very unwise for you to attempt to post algebraic formulae.

Thanks for replying.

I tried my best to cognitize these equations but apparently to no avail, perhaps science is no longer for me to purse my interest in as it seemingly is not a right fit for me to fit myself into.

I will take my leave or depart from this science and I wish you ladies and gentlemen good luck with it.

Mimicking Spock's voice with right hand up in air while uttering: "Live long and prosper."

2 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Thanks for replying.

I tried my best to cognitize these equations but apparently to no avail, perhaps science is no longer for me to purse my interest in as it seemingly is not a right fit for me to fit myself into.

I will take my leave or depart from this science and I wish you ladies and gentlemen good luck with it.

Mimicking Spock's voice with right hand up in air while uttering: "Live long and prosper."

Why give up? Why not just read about science and learn a little bit about algebra, enough to understand simple equations?

The mistake is to try making stuff up before you know enough for it to make sense.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Why give up? Why not just read about science and learn a little bit about algebra, enough to understand simple equations?

The mistake is to try making stuff up before you know enough for it to make sense.

I'm not giving up. I thought I was, but.

I learned algebra via this before: https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/algebra-topics/

But its like my brain somehow deleted or cleared my studies on it like as if it is Internet browser cookies lol. Anyway, yeah I'm gonna re-learn it again.

Also to clarify something: I'm not making it up. My mind put these equation formulation together but not sure about which arrangement is correct (e.g. g = fdmt, or g = dmtf, or etc ..) the arrangement is issue I'm working on it atm.

Edit: The gravity equation is the focus I meant to convey, just not sure which arrangement is correct. Granted, I should re-learn algebra again and re-work on the g equation.

Edited May 2May 2 by tylers100

I agree with the criticism. Also, whenever you write down t (for time) or d (for distance), you should immediately ask yourself: Time and distance with respect to what?

That these concepts are mere references that require coordinatisation was first realised at least in 1632.

Edited May 2May 2 by joigus
link added

22 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Also to clarify something: I'm not making it up. My mind put these equation formulation together but not sure about which arrangement is correct (e.g. g = fdmt, or g = dmtf, or etc ..) the arrangement is issue I'm working on it atm.

Edit: The gravity equation is the focus I meant to convey, just not sure which arrangement is correct. Granted, I should re-learn algebra again and re-work on the g equation.

Have a look too at dimensional analysis. You can express most equations in mechanics in terms of mass M, length L, and time T. For instance velocity is distance/time so L/T. Acceleration is velocity/time so L/T². Force is, by Newton's formula F=ma, mass x acceleration. So that gives force dimensions of ML/T². And mechanical work, which is a mechanical form of energy, is force x distance, so energy has dimensions of ML²/T².

The rule in science is the dimensions on the left side of a formula must be the same as those on the right. If they are not you are trying to equate apples with oranges, which is a nonsense, so you've got something wrong. A dimensional check is often a useful thing to do when you come up with a formula for the first time.

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I agree with the criticism. Also, whenever you write down t (for time) or d (for distance), you should immediately ask yourself: Time and distance with respect to what?

That these concepts are mere references that require coordinatisation was first realised at least in 1632.

To mass's force (although generally so, I think), came to my mind immediately.

13 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

To mass's force (although generally so, I think), came to my mind immediately.

You're not making sense. You need a then and a there.

Force is not an attribute of mass. Nor are either of them (force or mass) space-time references.

On 5/2/2025 at 11:01 AM, joigus said:

You're not making sense. You need a then and a there.

Force is not an attribute of mass. Nor are either of them (force or mass) space-time references.

Fine. Perhaps not to you, but to me in a way.

My apologies for a slight rudeness on my last post, I should of had re-phrase it differently.

I will refrain from using algebra and equations for time being as I apparently obviously lack an understanding and proper education on using these.

Edited May 6May 6 by tylers100
Added 'apparently' word

On 5/2/2025 at 8:45 AM, tylers100 said:

'placeholder' for any possible mathematical operation

In case it helps, just an idea;

While the product [math] f = d* m * t [/math] is dimensionally wrong, you can still say that force depends on distance, mass, and time by introducing an unknown function [math]f  =  F(d,m,t), F:D \subset\Re^{3}   \rightarrow \Re[/math]

where D is the set of allowed triples (d,m,t). The explicit form of F is not yet known, but whatever it is, F(d,m,t) must have the units of newtons.